Tom Farrell's Nuclear Fantasy

Tom Farrell doesn't get it. Dominion Power, the utility of which he is CEO, has been all about building natural gas plants for the past couple of years, as it rushes to take advantage of cheap fracked gas. Out with the aging coal plants that had been its first love, in with the next cheap thing, and never mind the pollution! Then suddenly two weeks ago, faced with a question about climate change, Farrell told reporters the answer is more nuclear plants.Mother Earth to Tom Farrell: The correct answer is "renewable energy." Most of the rest of the country gets this. Wind supplied more new electric generation than natural gas did in 2012. More people work in solar energy than in coal mining. Renewable energy has overtaken nuclear worldwide. Almost no one is building nuclear plants, partly because-here's an inconvenient truth for you, Tom-they cost too much. Almost three years ago a Duke University study found that power from new nuclear plants is more expensive than solar energy, and the cost of solar has only gone down since then. But Farrell is convinced wind and solar can't provide reliable electricity to power the whole grid. You'd think he'd been reading propaganda from the Koch Brothers and had come to believe that if there are solar panels somewhere and a cloud crosses the sun, the whole grid crashes. Can I just point out here that Dominion's own North Anna nuclear reactors shut down suddenly in 2011 following an earthquake in Virginia, and the grid did not crash? Even though nuclear is one-third of Dominion's Virginia portfolio, and North Anna represents more than half of that? And even though, while weather forecasters are pretty good at predicting regional cloud cover, no one can yet predict an earthquake? The reason the grid didn't crash is that grid operators make sure there is enough surplus generation available to keep supplying power even at times of catastrophic failure. And note that the nuclear plants didn't come back online when the clouds cleared off, either. They were down for four months. If nuclear power is more expensive than renewables, and it has to be backed up 100% with other forms of energy, for much longer time periods, where is the place for new nuclear?

ivymain :: Tom Farrell's Nuclear Fantasy

As the CEO of a utility, Tom Farrell should know better. He should also know about the new study demonstrating that renewable energy alone-onshore wind, offshore wind, and solar energy-can power the entire grid 99.9% of the time. The study authors show that doing this would actually cost less than conventional sources of electricity, assuming you include in the price the "external" cost society pays for the use of fossil fuels. That is, if you factor in the cost of climate change, it's cheaper to build renewable energy than new fossil fuel plants.Climate aside, there's other evidence for the superior value of renewable energy in providing price stability for customers and a whole range of benefits for the grid. And of course, for meeting demand at the cheapest possible cost, you can't beat energy efficiency. It's time to face reality, Tom Farrell. If all you care about is making money for Dominion today, your natural gas strategy probably makes sense. But if you care about tomorrow-or even about the big picture today-it doesn't. Either way, there's no room in the picture for expensive new nuclear plants. And if you're sincerely concerned about climate change, now would be a good time for Dominion to invest in energy efficiency, wind and solar. Note to readers: Willett Kempton, one of the authors of the study cited above on powering the grid with renewable energy, will be speaking at a townhall meeting sponsored by Sierra Club and Environment America this Wednesday, March 13, at the MetroStage Theatre, 1201 North Royal St., Alexandria, VA. The meeting is open to the public (Tom Farrell is especially invited). To RSVP, contact Phillip Ellis at phillip.ellis@sierraclub.org or 571-970-0275.

Big Oil: We'll Still Hate Obama Even If He Gives Us Keystone XL

By The Green Miles Those who support climate action but say it's not worth fighting the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline like to imply that President Obama's approval of the pipeline would earn him political capital. But the head of one polluter front group would like to assure Washington that whether President Obama approves or rejects Keystone XL, Big Oil will still hate him just as much.Grist's David Roberts has extensively documented the Very Serious People BipartisanThink case against #noKXL activists. As Jennifer Yachnin reports in E&E News (sub. req.), a top oil industry lobbyist says they're wrong - that Big Oil will fight any efforts to cut carbon pollution tooth & nail regardless of President Obama's Keystone decision: But [American Energy Alliance and Institute for Energy Research President Thomas] Pyle added thatapproving the pipeline won't curb industry criticism of the Obama administration, including over what it sees as efforts to hold back oil and gas production on federal lands."I don't know that it buys him any good will," Pyle said. "There will be lots of statements of thank you ... but ultimately from a political perspective I don't know that it buys him any room to maneuver." And ill will could linger over how much time it has taken the administration to make a final decision on the pipeline, Pyle added. All the climate-disrupting carbon pollution and not even a thank you from his political enemies? All the more reason President Obama should do the right thing and reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Video: DPVA Executive Director Lauren Harmon Speaks to the Brigades

Last night at the monthly Brigades meeting (at Neighbors Restaurant in Vienna), new Democratic Party of Virginia Executive Director spoke to the group, and also answered questions, for about 1/2 hour. After introducing herself, including a joke about how her holidays with her Tea Party parents are "super fun," and her background working for Gabby Giffords and the Ohio Democratic Party, she laid out her thoughts for DPVA in 2013 and beyond. Among other things, Harmon said the Democratic campaigns this year will truly be coordinated. According to Harmon, there will be 170 field organizers this year, "in every corner of the Commonwealth," at a cost of $2.5 million. There will also be a focus on analytics (Harmon added that the analytics team will be headed up by person who worked on President Obama's analytics) and motivating "drop-off voters" - ones who tend to vote in presidential elections but not in state elections - to come out this year. My favorite quote of the evening: "our communications team, we're going to have one person focused on just beating the snot out of Ken Cuccinelli all day long - Brian Coy." Finally, Harmon talked about building up/investing in the party, to come out of 2013 "not just with a Democrat in the governor's mansion" and more Democratic seats in the House of Delegates, but with DPVA "in a strong and sustainable financial position so that we can start capitalizing on our year-to-year gains." According to Harmon, "we can't just plan to come out of this not able to plug a coffee pot in at the Democratic Party headquarters, that's not how you run an organization...we've got to look to 2020, we've got to look to redistricting, because that's the only way that we're going to be able to build a long-term majority for the Commonwealth...because they are gerrymandering the hell out of those districts, and we all know it." Good stuff, now let's make it happen!

Unemployment Rate Drops to 7.7%; 246,000 Jobs Added In Spite of GOP Efforts to Sabotage Economy

That crazy "socialist in the White House" (that was snark; in reality, of course, Obama's about as middle of the road as you can get) and his wild-eyed economic policies are at it again! 

While more work remains to be done, today's employment report provides evidence that the recovery that began in mid-2009 is gaining traction. Today's report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) shows that private sector businesses added 246,000 jobs in February. Total non-farm payroll employment rose by 236,000 jobs last month. The economy has now added private sector jobs every month for three straight years, and a total of 6.35 million jobs have been added over that period.The household survey showed that the unemployment rate fell from 7.9 percent in January to 7.7 percent in February, the lowest since December 2008...

In other words, the Obama recovery continues, in spite of the best efforts of Republicans to derail it. Latest example: the brain-dead sequester, which was a direct consequence of the Teahadists' wild irresponsibility in holding the nation's credit rating hostage in July 2011. In addition to the adverse impacts of the sequester in the short term, including a potential reduction in the U.S. economic growth rate for 2013, there's also the long-term adverse impact of reduced investment in the things we should be investing in - our infrastructure, clean energy, education, etc. In other words, it's Obama and his middle-of-the-road, balanced approach versus the discredited trickle-down/supply-side voodoo economics of John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Eric Can'tor et al. I know which one I prefer; how about you?

P.S. Another reason to be thrilled that Willard lost the election in November is that he'd now be taking credit for a recovery that has occurred 100% on a Democratic president's watch.

Image of the Day: We Need to Stop Burning Fossil Fuels ASAP or We. Are. Screwed.

After reading this, even a science-denying cretin like Ken Cuccinelli should be convinced that urgent action is needed to prevent climate disaster. Of course, he won't be convinced: as Upton Sinclair famously said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." In the case of Cuccinelli, substitute "campaign contributions" for "salary" and you've pretty much got it.

Dominion Takes the Wrong Way on Solar

On February 12, Virginia's State Corporation Commission held a public hearing to decide whether to approve Dominion Virginia Power's plan to buy 3 megawatts of solar power from Virginia residents and businesses to sell to the company's voluntary Green Power Program. Sound like a good idea? It's not.Yes, Virginians want solar power. Investing in solar means stably priced electricity, cleaner air and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Solar power is now cost-effective in Virginia even in the absence of state incentives, thanks to federal tax credits and a steep decline in the price of solar panels. But a high upfront cost still limits who can afford to install it. Utilities and the SCC have a role to play in bringing new solar power onto the grid. Dominion's program to install 30 megawatts of solar on leased rooftops, which the SCC approved this fall, provides an example of how utilities can strengthen the grid, diversify their power sources, supply valuable peak-demand electricity, and contribute to their own learning curve on integrating renewable energy, all while meeting a portion of their customers' demand for clean power. The 3-megawatt program, on the other hand, gets nothing right. Under the program, customers who have solar panels would sell all their solar power to Dominion for 15 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), and buy regular fossil-fuel electricity (known as "brown power") from Dominion at the normal retail rate of about 11 cents. Cost to Dominion: 4 cents/kWh. Dominion would then resell the solar power to the participants in its Green Power Program, not for the 4 cents it costs the company, but for 11 cents. Dominion would keep 7 cents/kWh. Dominion tells us that the 7 cents would go to its rate base, not its own bottom line. But it's clear who loses. The do-gooders who pay extra on their utility bills for the Green Power Program would pay 11 cents for something Dominion bought for 4 cents. They are being played for chumps.

ivymain :: Dominion Takes the Wrong Way on Solar

Last year the Green Power Program bought Virginia solar power directly for 4 cents/kWh through the purchase of renewable energy certificates. So why should the program pay 11 cents for something it can get for 4?Since Dominion administers the program, it will be up to the SCC to prevent this misuse of its funds. This is only part of the problem. The reason Dominion wants to shift the cost of the solar purchase onto the Green Power Program is its insistence that the value of solar energy isn't the retail rate of electricity, but is the utility's "avoided cost"-roughly, the price at which it can buy brown power on the wholesale market, which is around 4 cents/kWh. Of course, if the current wholesale price were the only thing that mattered, you'd have to question why Dominion ever builds its own electric generation, including its new coal-fired plant that delivers power at 9.3 cents/kWh. The SCC allows Dominion to build its own generation in Virginia for a host of other reasons, all of which apply equally to Virginia solar. Rooftop solar also provides significant additional benefits to the utility and the electric grid that utility-supplied brown power does not. A number of recent studies have quantified these benefits to prove that net-metered solar (where customers sell solar power to the grid at the retail rate) lowers costs for everyone. Yet Dominion wants to shift costs onto a voluntary program, while keeping the benefits. This is bad for the Green Power Program, and it sets a terrible precedent for valuing solar that could retard its growth in Virginia. And that would be bad for all of us. Note to readers: the Richmond Times-Dispatch declined to publish this piece last month unless Dominion gave them a response to be published at the same time. Dominion apparently did not do so, thus the piece was never published in print.

Audio: Mark Herring Says VA AG's Office Needs "A Lot Less Politics...A Lot More Problem Solving"

On the John Fredericks Show this morning tore into Ken Cuccinelli, on several major grounds: 1) Cuccinelli's been a lot more focused on politics than on problem solving, and "that's the wrong approach for Virginia's families"; 2) Cuccinelli "went after and persecuted a UVA professor he disagreed with on climate change...[Cuccinelli] used the full powers of the office of Attorney General to go after this scientist, because he disagreed with his science, which is absolutely outrageous and an abuse of power and downright unAmerican...Thomas Jefferson would be spinning in his grave"; 3) the persecution of Professor Mann "turned out just to be a pattern of abuses," 4) because of Cuccinelli's "brand of extreme politics, it will be harder and more expensive for Virginia women to receive health care."In stark contrast, Sen. Herring said that when he's Attorney General, he'll be focused on "making voting easier, not harder;" "mak[ing] sure the law is working for Virginia families and that we are protecting the rights of people to make their own personal choices about health care and contraception;" "doing what we can to help keep Virginia safe;" "giving law enforcement the tools they need, like updating the laws on designer drugs;" and "that we're doing everything we can to protect women from domestic violence and abuse." Sen. Herring also noted that most of Cuccinelli's lawsuits have not been successful (e.g., his failed lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act, a failed lawsuit against the EPA), while being very expensive to taxpayers. Sen. Herring corrected John Fredericks on what is at best utter ignorance, at worst an egregious, outright lie. According to Fredericks, "overall government spending in the state of Virginia has gone up dramatically...if you go back to a 6-year period." In fact, as Sen. Herring points out, the general fund budget today was about equal in 2011 to when Herring took office, in 2006. Also, according to PolitiFact, Tim Kaine was correct that "the general fund budget was smaller at the end of his gubernatorial term than at the start." But don't believe a Democrat, how about Gov. McDonnell, who brags that "[o]ver the past two years we have eliminated $6 billion in budget shortfalls, and set spending back to nearly 2007 levels." So what on earth is John Fredericks talking about? Sadly, it's the myth that Republicans constantly push, that "spending is out of control," and it's just flat-out false. In other news, Sen. Herring discusses his vote for Gov. McDonnell's transportation package. The main reasons? Transportation gridlock has been hurting Virginia's ability to grow our economy; to maintain (let alone enhance) our quality of life; to maintain our attractiveness to businesses thinking about coming to our state and our ability to recruit potential employees to places like northern Virginia, etc. In addition, this transportation funding will help fund rail to Dulles and keep tolls from skyrocketing on the Dulles Toll Road. Of course, Herring points out, the bill's "not perfect," but "on balance it does a lot more good than harm." Herring was asked whether he believed in government transparency, and he responded that he's "a huge believer in open government." That includes doing a better job of putting budget information online. Surely, Herring says, we can do that in the "internet capital of the world." On the issue of drones, Sen. Herring said we "have to be careful about how law enforcement uses drones, and I'm concerned...that we completely lose our sense of freedom and privacy due to someone looking around through drones...that is a legitimate concern." Having said that, "there are also probably important times when the unmanned vehicles could probably, in a particular law enforcement action...can save lives...might be an appropriate use of unmanned vehicles, but we've got to be real careful about how and when law enforcement goes about employing those types of tactics." Finally, Sen. Herring discussed his campaign for AG, including his long list of endorsements and his view that it would be ideal for both Democrats and Republicans to have a primary to select their nominees in June.

A Few Elements of a Progressive "Grand Bargain" on the Budget

Multiple news reports, as well as comments on this morning's talk shows, are indicating the potential exists for a bipartisan "grand bargain" on a long-term deficit reduction deal. Reuters quotes White House senior economic official Gene Sperling that President Obama is "reaching out to Democrats who understand we have to make serious progress on long-term entitlement reform and Republicans who realize that if we had that type of entitlement reform, they'd be willing to have tax reform that raises revenues to lower the deficit." For its part, Roll Call reportsthat a long-term deficit reduction bargain "could blunt the effects of the $85 billion in automatic spending cuts now in place."I have no idea how serious any of this is, but it's certainly sounding live a live possibility. With that in mind, I've got a few thoughts on what might constitute a progressive "grand bargain," one that would not just reduce the long-term, structural deficit, but also move our country forward and allow us to move on to other, pressing issues. 1. Far from slashing non-defense discretionary spending, we need to be drastically increasing our investment in America - both its physical capital and "human capital." That means restoring full funding to programs which help educate our people (not just kids, but lifetime learning), massively upgrade our transportation and power grids, kick-start the transition to a clean energy economy, invest in cutting-edge research and development, and basically put money into anything that provides a positive ROI (return on investment) to our nation. It's important to emphasize that although many people confuse "spending" and "investment," they're actually quite different, as "investment" results in stronger economic growth and, in many/most cases, more revenue into the system than has gone out for the investments. 2. We need to raise revenues. Badly (note: current tax revenues are the lowest as a share of GDP "in more than 60 years). To do this, we don't have to raise tax rates (although I would have gotten rid of the Bush tax cuts for anyone who's not truly "middle class" or below). Instead, we can do it by slashing tax expenditures. As David Brooks writes, "[t]hese tax expenditures are hidden but huge...in 2007, they amounted to $600 billion." These expenditures include the exclusion for employer-sponsored health care ($171 billion a year), the mortgage interest deduction ($87 billion), and preferential treatment of capital gains ($66 billion). Then there are all the wasteful subsidies, on things like corn-based ethanol and fossil fuels, which add up to tens of billions of dollars per year. It goes on and on, and basically blows a huge hole in the budget, while making the tax code overly complicated, and also wildly unfair. So...simply the tax code, eliminate, or at least pare back, a lot of these tax expenditures - especially for wealthy corporations and individuals. This idea should have appeal to both Democrats and Republicans. 3. A truly progressive "grand bargain" would shift the tax code so that we are making the things we want to have less of (e.g, pollution) more expensive, while making the things we want to have more of (e.g., productive investment) less expensive. On this front, the Washington Post (of all people) nailed it this morning in its editorial calling for a carbon tax. As the Post points out, this would accomplish multiple goals: reducing carbon emissions, reducing the deficit, allowing for cuts in taxes that discourage investment in the US, etc. This one's a no brainer. 4. There's no doubt in my mind that we need to reform entitlements, which increasingly are taking over our entire budget (turning us into an"insurance company with an army," as the quip goes). Clearly, we need to maintain a social safety net, and clearly we need to protect benefits for people who really need them. But we also need a lot more stringent "means testing" on entitlements so that we're not essentially transferring money from young people (and the future) to well-to-do/rich retired people who really don't need all that money. While we're at it, we need to raise the cap on the payroll tax, which exempts wages over $110,000 from the tax. Why someone making $100 million a year should only be subject to the payroll tax on the first $110,000 of their income, while the remaining $99,890,000 is not subject to the payroll tax, makes no sense to me. Anyway, those are just a few ideas, not a comprehensive plan. That's nuts. Still, it seems to me that if we did these things, we'd slash and/or completely eliminate the deficit, simplify our tax code, strengthen our nation's future, protect our environment, and reduce the massive inter-generational inequities in our current system. We also would be able to move on from this debilitating debate/self-generated crises over the deficit, and get back to a focus on creating jobs, building a 21st century economy that's "built to last," and dealing with the many other issues - immigration reform, guns, you name it - that have languished over the past few years. P.S. It should go without saying that we should NOT be doing brain-dead, across-the-board cuts to the tiny slice of the budget known as non-defense discretionary spending. We also should do nothing that would hurt anyone who is truly in need, or that shreds our social safety net (we should be strengthening that for decades to come).

Del. Dave Albo (R): "I've solved the problem" of transportation in Virginia

Last we heard from Dave Albo, he was regaling us with the tale of how his wife wouldn't have sex with him because he voted for transvaginal ultrasound. Hilarious, huh? I know, it's a real howler. Ha ha ha. Ha. Whatever. Anyway, Dave Albo is baaaaack, and now he's regaling us with yet another story of his amazing exploits. This time, though, he's not out to protect Virginia women from...themselves, I guess, but to save Virginia motorists from endless gridlock thanks to...people like him, I guess. That's right, earlier today on the WAMU Politics Hour radio show, Dave Albo claimed the following about the transportation bill:

...the Democrats agreed to do a transfer of $200 million out, which is a lot of money, out of general spending, and we agreed to raise new revenue, that's how the compromise happened. You know, I mean, I've got people on both sides who are mad at me, but bottom line is I've solved the problem. Well, I shouldn't say I...Bob McDonnell, Speaker Howell and others have solved the problem.

Is this guy delusional or what? I mean, first of all the concept that Dave Albo personally negotiated the transportation deal is utterly laughable. At least he quickly corrected himself on that Freudian slip/howler, acknowledging that, oh yeah, Bob McDonnell and Bill Howell might have had something to do with this (not to mention Janet Howell, Dick Saslaw, etc.). Second, if Albo really believes that the problem of transportation in Virginia is even CLOSE to being "solved" (in fact, we'll need multiples more money - perhaps $100 billion over 20 years - than this deal provides, if we're going to ever come close to "solving" the problem), then I've got him a nice toll road to sell him! More to the point, if he really believes that, then he certainly shouldn't be in the General Assembly, because he has no clue what he's saying or doing. So, any normal person would try to correct himself as soon as he realize how badly he screwed up. But no, this is Dave Albo we're talking about, the same guy who joked about his wife not having sex with him because he voted for transvaginal ultrasound, and thought he was just oh-so-clever and oh-so-hilarious in doing so. In this case, the terminally clueless Albo doubles down (see the video clip above) on his idiocy, claiming that "transportation is now done, solved," so the 2013 gubernatorial candidates "don't have to argue about it." I mean, what can you even say about someone like this, except to laugh at him? Oh, and that it would be nice if Democrats could actually defeat this bozo one of these years...

Video: Guy Who's Given $723k to Virginia GOP Compares Public Schools to Soviet "Gulags"

Yep, it's "Bobby" McDonnell's "good friend" Pat Robertson, a huge donor to Virginia Republicans, at it once again. This time, he's ranting about the public schools, claiming that liberals use them like the Soviets used "gulags" to "indoctrinate" children into their world view. Note that Virginia Republicans never denounce or distance themselves in any way from Robertson's insane views, or from his money. From that, we should all conclude that they either agree with him, or don't disagree with him sufficiently enough to tell him where to shove it. Note, for instance, that Republicans and right-wing groups like ALEC have been hostile to public education for years, wanting to defund it, bash teachers, and privatize as much of it as possible. So, the language they use may be different than Robertson's, but do they disagree with Robertson's premise that public schools are used for "liberals" to "indoctrinate" children (yeah, into things like "science," "history," "empirical/rational thinking," crazy stuff like that). P.S. By the way, the Soviet Gulag resulted in "1.6 million deaths during the whole period from 1929 to 1953," with "[s]ome estimates for total number deaths in the Gulag go beyond 10 million." Yep, exactly like the public school system here in America!