In 2004, SB 651, the "Electric Utility Restructuring Act," was passed by the General Assembly and signed into law by Governor Mark Warner. This law strongly tilted the playing field in favor of a new coal-fired power plant in the "coalfield region of the Commonwealth" and "utiliz[ing] Virginia coal." Can we say, "Wise County coal-fired power plant?"G. To ensure a reliable and adequate supply of electricity, and to promote economic development, an investor-owned distributor that has been designated a default service provider under this section may petition the [State Corporation] Commission for approval to construct, or cause to be constructed, a coal-fired generation facility that utilizes Virginia coal and is located in the coalfield region of the Commonwealth, as described in � 15.2-6002, to meet its native load and default service obligations, regardless of whether such facility is located within or without the distributor's service territory. The Commission shall consider any petition filed under this subsection in accordance with its competitive bidding rules promulgated pursuant to � 56-234.3, and in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision C 3 related to the price of default service, a distributor that constructs, or causes to be constructed, such facility shall have the right to recover the costs of the facility, including allowance for funds used during construction, life-cycle costs, and costs of infrastructure associated therewith, plus a fair rate of return, through its rates for default service. A distributor filing a petition for the construction of a facility under the provisions of this subsection shall file with its application a plan, or a revision to a plan previously filed, as described in subdivision C 3, that proposes default service rates to ensure such cost recovery and fair rate of return. The construction of such facility that utilizes energy resources located within the Commonwealth is in the public interest, and in determining whether to approve such facility, the Commission shall liberally construe the provisions of this title.What's odd about this bill is who voted for it (68 delegates, ranging from "liberal" to "conservative" and everything in between) and who didn't (almost all rural Republicans). True, there were a number of provisions in here, including deregulation for another couple years while keeping electricity prices capped. My understanding is that rural Republicans opposed the bill because it contained a "fuel factor" increase that was perceived as hiking rates significantly. But also in the bill was language ("in the public interest," "shall liberally construe the provisions of this title") to jumpstart the Wise County coal-fired power plant.
Among the most interesting votes for this bill was that of then-Delegate Brian Moran, which is probably why Washington Post reporter Tim Craig wrote that, "As a member of the House in 2004, Moran voted to authorize the Wise project." Now, it's important to point out that encouraging a new coal-fired power plant was only PART of this bill. It's certainly possible that Moran could have voted "aye" on this bill for any number of reasons (just as Creigh Deeds could have voted "nay" for any number of reasons). It's also possible that, back in 2004, Virginia legislators weren't really focused on the issue of global warming, although frankly, there wasn't much excuse given that the Kyoto Protocol to control greenhouse gas emissions was adopted in 1997, not to mention that the U.N. "Earth Summit" on climate change was held in Rio in 1992. All that is possible, except...
...even in January 2009, when everyone's focused on the issue of climate change - and, more to the point, when Brian Moran is portraying himself as THE environmentalist candidate in the race for governor - the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported that Moran "declined to say whether he also opposes a proposed coal-fired plant in Wise County that has drawn the fire of environmentalists." A few weeks later, Moran asserted that "We can create the research necessary for carbon sequestration so we can develop cleaner coal." And in late February 2009, Moran - while stumping in the "coal country" of far-southwestern Virginia - said that "Coal is certainly an asset to Southwest Virginia and the economy in the region relies upon it," adding that "We need to make sure we’re pursuing the research to make sure it’s a viable source of energy." These statements certainly don't jibe with Moran campaign chairwoman Mame Reiley's comment that "the only candidate for governor to stand squarely against drilling off our coast because he believes 21st century energy solutions aren't found in 19th century fossil fuels."
Meanwhile, back in August 2008, Josh Chernila interviewed Brian Moran for RK at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Here's the section relevant to Moran's attitude on coal (bolding added for emphasis):
Since [Moran] mentioned RK's well-documented rift with Governor Kaine, I press him on energy, in particular coal. I'm expecting him to mention the fact that he had purchased carbon credits on behalf of the Virginia Delegation to offset the carbon footprint of our visit to Denver. I mark it as a sense of integrity that he doesn't mention it.
"I favor a comprehensive energy policy that includes five sources of energy: coal, nuclear, alternative energy sources, natural gas and conservation....
"Then there are alternatives: switchgrass, wind, solar, biomass. A big thing we need to pay attention to are private research credits. Virginia universities are among the best in the nation, we could attract huge funding for energy research here."
You mean research in alternative energy?
"That includes alternatives, but also sequestration. Congressman Boucher is leading on this. We're sitting on the Saudi Arabia of coal. We can't turn our backs on that.
Hmmmmmm. I don't know about you, but I don't believe I've ever heard the phrase "the Saudi Arabia of coal," stated in a POSITIVE way, coming out of the mouths of any environmentalists I know. Have you? Yet here's Brian Moran, in August 2008, strongly advocating for the continued role of coal in Virginia's energy mix.
By the way, the concept that Virginia is really the "Saudi Arabia of coal" is completely and utterly ridiculous. According to EIA, Virginia contains 256 million metric tons of recoverable coal reserves, which may sound like a lot but actually represents just 1 percent of U.S. proven coal reserves. I'm sorry, but 1 percent of U.S. coal reserves doesn't qualify us as the "Saudi Arabia of coal" by any stretch of the imagination. Not to mention the fact that Virginia coal production is more costly, both economically and environmentally, than coal production in states like Wyoming, where they don't need to blow the tops off mountains to access the coal seams beneath.
My bottom line question, then, is simple: why is Brian Moran going around calling Virginia the "Saudi Arabia of coal" and touting the continued use of this dirty, ice-cap-melting, 19th-century fuel source, while at the same time claiming that he's the strongest candidate on environmental issues? It's jarring and I'm puzzled; can anyone explain this (seeming) discrepancy? (to put it in more colloquial terms, "what gives?")
P.S. Just to be clear, this is NOT just about Brian Moran. Bob McDonnell is absolutely horrible on the environment, as he is on pretty much every issue progressives care about. On the Democratic side, Creigh Deeds has never (at least to my knowledge) come out against the proposed Surry plant or against the continued use of coal in Virginia's energy mix. What Deeds HAS said is that he favors developing an "energy-based research triangle" to promote renewable energy sources while "keeping all options on the table" with regard to the use of coal. No thanks. As to Terry McAuliffe, his formulation is that "[r]ather than focusing on old technologies, we should focus on new, clean technologies." However, McAuliffe doesn't take coal completely off the table either; for instance, on Surry, McAuliffe says, "If a new coal plant is built, it should be as clean as possible -- and from my understanding, the one being proposed for Surry County does not meet that standard." McAuliffe also has said that he wants to avoid the need to build new coal-fired power plants. That's good as far as it goes, but why is it so hard for Virginia Democrats to break completely free from coal, especially when coal employment in the Commonwealth has plummeted from around 10,000 jobs in 1990 to about 4,000 jobs now - 0.05% of the state's population (and less than 0.5% of the state's economic output)?
P.P.S. Brian Moran stood strong against offshore drilling and should be commended for that. Creigh Deeds and Terry McAuliffe have essentially adopted the position of Governor Kaine, that we might want to poke around and see what's out there (especially for natural gas) before making any decisions on whether to proceed any further. Of course, Bob McDonnell - like his pal Sarah Palin - wants to DRILL BABY DRILL!!!
