Draw an eyebrow on that weasel.  

Now this is how you do it!

A proposal to address climate change by adopting the nation's most ambitious plan to reduce greenhouse gases went before Maryland lawmakers Tuesday, with the governor lending his backing to the bill but industry and union officials warning that the plan could hurt the state while doing little to stop climate change.

The bill before lawmakers would require Maryland to slash emissions of carbon-based greenhouse gases 25 percent by 2020 and 90 percent by 2050. If adopted, the carbon reductions would be the nation's steepest.

Gov. Martin O'Malley backed the proposal Tuesday, saying Maryland is particularly vulnerable to sea-level rise because of its more than 3,000 miles of shoreline.

"We know that we are facing a crisis, and the only way to get out of that crisis is to set goals and put them in legislation," O'Malley said.

Message to Gov. Kaine: call Martin O'Malley and seek his advice on this issue!

It attacks its friends rather than its enemies.

If Kaine could force the Republicans to accept his plan, he would, but he can't.  

Cutting your legs out from under your friends is never smart.  It also sends the signal going forward that Greens can't be counted on, that they will turn on you.  Others will hesitate before relying on Greens as a result.

about how loyal the environmental movement was to him in 2000.  They were the first to turn and follow Ralph Nader off the cliff.

And as Gore later proved, nobody was more dedicated to fighting for environmental causes than he was.

You are quite right that first we have to get a majority of Democrats in Richmond and build a consensus with the public, who often is way ahead of the curve of politicians.

Note to Progressive blogosphere in Virginia: We are not Maryland by a long shot and I bet Gov. Kaine often envies O'Malley for the legislature that he gets to work with on these issues.

of something called a "bully pulpit?"  Also, don't you think that Gov. Kaine could go a long way towards stopping the proposed new coal-fired plant in Wise County if he wanted to do so?  Finally, did someone force Gov. Kaine to sign the Dominion-lobbyist-written reregulation bill last year? Just curious.

What we can do is limited agreed, however, there is something that can be done which hasn't been discussed here.  

The GA will be appointing a new SCC commissioner very soon.  If the GA can't come to an agreement by March 5th, Kaine's deferment to the GA expires and he will make the appointment.  

Don't you think its time to remind your state legislatures who is the boss?  Check this out and tell them you are troubled with Dominion's inability to lead Virginia towards a future with a sound energy plan.

...part of the frustration with Al Gore in 2000 was that he did NOT run on his signatures issue of global warming, but instead listened to his idiot advisers who told him that it would lose him states like West Virginia.  Need I remind you how THAT worked out, both politically AND environmentally?

There is an extremly long history of Coal in Virginia which Maryland does not have.  I don't want to make this into a NoVa vs RoVa debate but I don't think many people realize how much of an influence Coal has in large portions of Virginia across both parties.

Another point to echo Green Miles (You know we actually agree on more than you think just watch your tone okay bud) is the importance of Conservation.  It is extremly hypocritical for some of the more well-off areas to be yelling down state when the increasing demand for power from our regions is the main reason why more energy is needed in the first place.  Or to put it another way downstate is just participating in the supply demand equation where they have the supply and we have the demand.

And finally a bit of realisim its okay to lobby against the coal plant but make sure you have an alternative go for wind, or solar, or nuclear, thats fine but also provide how much will it cost and where will it be put

       

Is citizenindy in the same category as "Dianne" and therefore it's OK to treat him/her as a dumbass since the opinion is different than the  majority here (or yours)?

I don't believe that was helpful.  I'm actually not sure I even believe that was really Lowell, as it doesn't read like something he would normally write.

I find the whole situation regarding the new plant to be unfortunate, but that doesn't discount or discredit AIAW's point viz. the political loyalties of the Greens and Al Gore.  Nor does your point, Lowell, that "part of the frustration with Al Gore in 2000 was that he did NOT run on his signatures issue of global warming."  It's true that he opted not to run to be President of Global Warming, and I'm sure it probably annoyed several of the more politically naive of the environmentalists in America that he decided to focus his limited time and resources campaigning on broader themes with wider public appeal.  Obviously, we have no reason to believe that's the reason he lost; the electoral college aside, it is not in dispute that more people voted for Gore than voted for Bush in 2000, and there is no way anyone can prove that statement would have been true if he'd spent less time talking about issues important to the Democratic base and more time talking about solar panels.

Moreover, it of course should go without saying that you don't have to campaign on every single issue all of the time in every election.  People are allowed to have opinions and even agendas related to issues that will be an important facet of their administrations, even if it's not a central focus of their campaigns.  It should not be in dispute that Al Gore was the intelligent choice for voters who thought it wasn't as important to simply talk about the environment as it actually was to do something aobut the environment, and so Anonymous is a Woman's point still stands: environmentalists who chose Nader over Gore made a foolish decision fueled my mistrust and disloyalty, and they haven't seen any measurable progress on their issue in the Federal Gov't as a consequence.

His idiot advisers told him not to talk about it. He lost.  Cause and effect?  You decide.

Was he cheated?  Oh definitely.  But I seem to remember 8 years of incompetence.  So, yeah, Gore lost.  Bush won.  Unfair as it is, that's what happened.

Sorry man. But if you go read your history books from when you were in the 5th grade you will see that Gore won the popular vote and in fact, won Florida.

Also a word of caution, there are some bloggers here who are probably still as pissed as I am that Bush was made president even though he lost. And I will let it go when Bush gets out of Al Gores house.

I'm going to decide to say that you're flat wrong.  You don't win elections by being right about everything, you win by dictating what the election is about.  "It's the Economy, Stupid!" is the perfect example.  In 1992, Clinton beat George H. W. Bush in spite of the incumbent's stellar record on foreign policy (he assembled and lead the broad coalition that won the first Iraq war convincingly and with very minimal American losses just one year before) by making the election about the recession we were sliding into.  It worked because of three factors:

1.  It was the area where Bush was measurably the weakest, and many people considered this to be Clinton's relative strenght (kind of by default, really).
2.  Clinton hammered on it constantly.  He stayed on message and didn't get distracted or sidetracked once he started the ball rolling.
3.  Perhaps most importantly, there was already widespread latent concern across a broad cross-section of Americans that our economy was in trouble.  This was the period when "downsizing" became a corporate buzzword, and it's usually a bad sign for the incumbent when there's a buzzword that describes rising unemployment.  It wasn't a hard sell for Clinton to make people believe that when they went to vote, they should decide to elect the candidate they thought would best protect and stimulate the economy.

By contrast, there wasn't nearly as broad a concensus in 2000 that global warming was one of the top three threats to America's way of life and that we should consequently each decide when we went to the polls, "which President is going to be best on global warming?"  Lots of people still considered it an alarmist hypothesis, like Y2K.  I therefore find your assertion that there is a causal relationship between global warming and Gore losing to be laughable.

It's more subtle than that, but ultimately more powerful.  The issue is this:  the consultants took away the one thing that Al Gore was most passionate about, most authentic about him.  That's a huge mistake, not the issue per se.  Of course, I don't think there's a "causal relationship between global warming and Al Gore losing," and the fact that you imply that I do is in and of itself laughable.  You must think I'm a complete idiot.  Thanks.

But you are much more clear now that you talk about being true to who someone is and not just the singular issue of global warming. There was not the political will then to make that an effective enough issue to run on. But I agree with you that he was over handled.

...that he was overhandled and not allowed to speak about the issue he was most passionate about.  His advisers were "too clever by half," as the saying goes, and I'm sure Gore regrets having listened to them.

"Global warming was Gore's #1 issue. (0.00 / 0)
His idiot advisers told him not to talk about it. He lost.  Cause and effect?  You decide.

Thank you for visiting RK! Click here to learn how to join Virginia's progressive online community.

----------------------

by: Lowell @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:42:57 AM EST"

If we both agree that it is indeed more subtle than you're suggesting here, then I'm glad we agree.

his advisers wouldn't let him talk about his #1 issue, the issue he was most passionate and authentic about.  It's not the issue itself, of course, that would have won Gore any more states, it's the effect it would have had on his campaign more broadly if they had "let Gore be Gore," so to speak.

Everyone in the state uses too much electricity, both liberals and conservatives. Both ignore the fact they are creating an awfully large physical footprint to live their everyday lives.  Most have no idea what impact they have created on people, the land, and the air, by just flipping a switch.  

Since Dominion has obviously sought the allegiance of both Democrats and Republicans to support their agenda, it is going to take a combined effort from both sides of the politcal spectrum at the grass root level, to derail them.    

However, there are realities on both sides of the issue, which requires an understanding before a sound movement encompassing all of Virginia can be accomplished.

At at least Governor Kaine realizes this and has placed  Education at the top of the list of strategy to meet our state's new energy policy goals'.

While I am not necessarily directing this at Lowell, it certainly isn't helpful to use an attitude which could polarizes efforts to derail the pro-Dominion agenda in our state.  

said during our call last week that Virginia won't be getting rid of coal.  He said it with a matter-of-fact tone, so you could argue that he is simply accepting and pointing out a reality.  

But he made no statement during our discussion about the Wise plant and pollution that made any of us believe he
a) He was or would fight for the environment
b) He was stuck in a corner and had no choice - and it wasn't his fault.

Furthermore, I'm not aware of any statement Kaine has made that backs up your claim "If Kaine could force the Republicans to accept his plan, he would, but he can't.".  Where/when did he say this?  If he wanted to blame the Republicans he could have very easily during our call last week.  In fact, pointing the finger at them would have been a much easier answer for him.

Kaine is Governor.  While this doesn't give him absolute power to enforce his will, he certainly can do much more than throw his hands up and say "the Republicans won't accept my ideas so I give up".  

... if he keeps saying what I'm trying to say better than I can. I hate it!  :)

You're right, Gov. Kaine was very clear that he was going to stay hands-off and let the SCC/DEQ processes run their course. It was very odd considering I heard him talk like a climate action hero at a hearing on Capitol Hill last fall. But the longer we go with Kaine taking a neutral stance on the Wise plant ... I don't know what he's thinking.

And the Republicans are spitting in Kaine's face this year no matter what he does. Why so worried about ticking them off on this one?

discussions comparing Maryland to Virginia, having a Republican legislature, etc., etc., and concentrate on why it is that Kaine hasn't condemned the Wise County power plant.  I for one refuse to believe that Kaine is buckling from any pressures applied by Dominion and coal industry folks for purely greedy, typically Repug reasons of wealth and power.  He has a record of standing up strong against special interest groups.  

I do however suspect that Kaine is only listening to the squeakiest wheel at the moment and it is Dominion who is screaming for more power to supposedly feed its Northern VA and Hampton Roads customers. Dominion is pounding that message over and over again that there is absolutely no other way to provide power to these citizens - that it is an urgent need and all sorts of gloom and doom will come if this power plant is not permitted.  

Therefore, the first, foremost and almost exclusive argument that anti-power plant folks need to focus on is combatting Dominion's argument that the need is great and is urgent.  That's it.  Present no other argument with Kaine.  He already knows how bad this power plant will be on the environment, how we need to pursue alternative energy production, etc.  You have to imagine him going to bed at night with the sound of Dominion ringing in his ears and all the potential doom and gloom for so many Virginians.  Kaine needs the other side screaming in his ear saying "No. There is no great need or urgency.  Dominion must simply put into place a way more aggressive conservation program and not sell off so much of its power to New England states, the need and the urgency will not be there.  We don't therefore need the Wise County Power Plant right now."

Show it to him in writing.  Show him charts and graphs indicating how much energy for VIRGINIANS (not New Englanders) this power plant will potentially provide vs. the charts and graphs indicating how much energy for Virginia is saved by an aggressive conservation program. I've seen these charts before.  It's amazing how much power we "gain back" from conservation, and I bet it comes close or maybe even exceeds that of the power needs that Dominion contends NoVA and HR need.  The difference is that Dominion doesn't make as much $ from conservation.  Come up with an estimate on that amount too to show Kaine.  

...while today it was Wise County, sadly, yesterday it was Meadow Brook to Loudoun and all those things you speak of were already within the mix of the discussion.  Even while they were out there in 2006, believe it or not, many Democratic officials in Northern Virginia spoke in favor of the 500kv transmission line as they too were fooled by Dominion, or were simply not educated on the matter.  I believe existing divisions and distrust in politics, prohibited the understanding of the Democrats in Arlington, Fairfax and Alexandria, to side with the more conservatives ones west of Fairfax, despite the involvement of the environmentally-friendly Piedmont Environmental Counsel.  It certainly appeared that way when Prince William Co BOS discussed a resolution to implement an EEC in the county.  Believe it or not, the only two who voted against the EEC resolution were the two Democrats!  See the need for settling differences and follow Obama's lead to create real change?

The one point of potential importance which wasn't part of the mix in Meadow Brook to Loudoun, is the escalating cost of plant construction.  Within the last few days (can't locate at the moment), a new industry report stated construction costs increased 27% in 2007.  If the cost for coal is more expensive, might other alternatives meet cost viability as well?

And what about technology which can capture more C02 than Dominion's fluid bed method?  Another plant under consideration aims to capture 90% of emitted C02 from a 800MW coal plant in Texas.  

Also, Dominion may be (?) using the fact it is constructing a 80MW wood waste biomass plant at the same site at the same time, as leverage for their coal plant.  Killing the coal plant, Dominion can argue, may prevent them from meeting the governor's RPS goals.    

Again like Meadow Brook to Loudoun, Dominion has proposed these expansion projects at the 11th hour.  And while citizens run to seek relief on the matter from their elected officials, they are shocked to learn many months ago, Dominion had already beat them there and urinated all over the mailboxes belonging to their state assemblymen and women.  Dominion knew about the increasing load before June 2005 when Meadow Brook to Loudoun was approved by PJM.   Afterall, they are the one's who proposed exporting the ~3000MW of capacity off to New Jersey in the first place.  

This is why I believe it is imperative to contact your state reps TODAY, pressing them on the upcoming SCC Commissioner appointment which is expected by March 5, 2008.  House Republicans want the appointment, but don't let their influence take Virginia down a path which extends Dominion's 20th century energy agenda.  Remember, conservatives out west of NOVA were against Dominion during Meadow Brook to Loudoun.  If your rep is a Republican, approach them with me points and issues they relate to (seizure and devaluation of private property, usage of existing right-of-ways, increased cost of coal constructed electricity) and not ideas such solely centered around AGW, which they are undoubtedly less receptive towards.

Coal has had its way in Virginia for a century due to money.  Any effective legislation to improve the safety of coal miners and the environment has come by way of federal law under Democrat presidents, many times Virginia being cited as the worst offender.  Gov Kaine is better on the environment than was Mark Warner who was better than his predecessors but the bottom line is that Virginia governors have more executive and appointive power than anywhere else in the nation. So Kaine is not helpless in the coal power plant issue and he doesn't need the permission of the House to exert his executive authority but he and the Democrats and the Republicans approved legislation that, for the first time, assured a private investor a guaranteed return on investment and Dominion is taking full advantage of that socialist feature and is brazen enough to ask for an extra 2% return add-on to the already hefty 11.5% return.  The company justifies the increase by saying it is making its new plant carbon sequestration compatible (by pre-laying pipes to the imaginary carbon capture facility and buying 12 acres in the event the technology is ever available).  Even Virginia's attorney general has blanched at this level of greed and opposes what would be a multi-million dollar windfall to presently finance something that may never happen. You may not want to hear this, but thus far the AG is the only state elected official to tell Dominion "no".  The cost of the plant has gone from an initial projection of $900million to $1.8billion and by the time it is built it will probably exceed $3billion, all of which, including the built-in rate of return, will be passed onto NOVA consumers.  No one political party or politician is solely to blame for this disastrous precedent of giving a blank check to a utility.  Environmental arguments aside, everyone should be up in arms about Virginia giving away the store due to political might. I don't know how Gov Kaine's "neutral" position will effect his national acceptance but if he takes on the coal industry and Dominion he will be the most unique individual to ever grace the governor's mansion.  Only Henry Howell would have had that kind of nerve and he, in the end, sold out to coal to try to get elected.

A few points.  First, talking about "getting rid of coal" is a false dichotomy. No one is talking about getting rid of coal.   This is just a way to avoid action.  We're not talking about getting rid of coal - just not expanding its usage. Setting up the frame as "getting rid of coal" is forcing a jobs versus environment message that makes it so hard to progress on this issue.

Second - we need leadership.  We all recognize that working this issue is challenging in Virginia, but that doesn't mean we can just pass the buck.  Why is Governor Kaine putting Preston Bryant front and center on the climate commission?  He should be the central figure.  SW Virginia is significant, but shouldn't dominate the entire debate.

Third - lets not make Virginia out as being that special. On one hand, many southern states are taking action on climate and rejecting coal, from Texas to Florida to NC.   And as for Maryland, they get a much larger percentage of their power (more than 60%) compared to less than 40% in Virginia.  This is a challenge for every state.  Some of just addressing it more aggressively than others.

was $369 billion.  Of that total, mining was $1.8 billion, or...wait for it...ZERO POINT FOUR NINE PERCENT (0.49%).  Put another way, 99.51% of the state's economy is not related to mining.  Oh yeah, and that's all mining, not just coal mining...can't find a stat right now specifically for coal mining, but it's got to be lower than the 0.49% figure for all mining as a share of Virginia's economy.  So, why are we letting the 0.49% (or smaller) tail wag the 99.51% dog?  Any thoughts?

It is also about whether or not there is a pressing need for the power. I think that you should provide alternative solutions for getting the power or demonstrating that we really don't need the power.

I like one of the comments below regarding Dominion selling off their power to New England states. Well there should be pressure on them to curtail that practice so we can justify not building the power plant.

But then again, if they don't sell to the New England consumers then someone somewhere else will need to build a powerplant of some sort and they will supply them.

The answer is, by far and away, energy efficiency.  After that, it's clean renewables like Concentrated Solar Power, solar towers, or even artificial energy islands.  In other words, we need to think outside the box if we want to slash greenhouse gas emissions 80%-90% by 2050, as scientists have said we need to do.

All I'm saying is that you don't burn your bridges.  Critiquing Kaine is fine, labeling him a "weasel" is going to make enemies out of people who should be friends.

Green folks would be better off looking for ways to take down Republicnas than burning bridges with Democrats.  If you call enough people "weasel," you'll end up someone without a party.

convincing Republican voters over "taking down Republicans".  

Calling Kaine a weasel is what you gotta do to hopefully wake him out of his current stupor.  It's tough love.  You hate to do it, but you gotta anyway coz we love him and trust that he will see the light and eventually again return to us.  

I really liked what you said above about presenting the Governor with facts and figures and showing him charts to convince him to change his mind.  That was smart and productive.

Your heart is certainly in the right place.  But calling people names usually does not persuade them.

Eileen, if I say you're wrong, and call you a moron for suggesting the above, will that persuade you to agree with me?

If a Republican governor talked about climate action, took huge amounts of cash from power companies, and refused to step in on this coal-fired power plant, what would we call him?

Since you asked.  Or at least I would, because I have other axes to grind, and if he's not going to support me on one issue, I hope he'll support me on others.

is calling Kaine a weasel.  It's Grist, self-dubbed as "a blogful of leafy green commentary" based in Seattle, Washington.  This says two things to me: 1) Kaine has national prominence and 2) Kaine has regard as an environmental leader.   From that vantage I appreciate them calling Kaine a weasel.  It says "we expect better" and "please turn this around and do the right thing as we know you can". He should feel honored.  ;)

I don't think you understand that this situation is really at a crisis point. This is do or die for Kaine, and desperate times calls for desperate measures.  And so far, Grist calling him a weasel has already accomplished something.  Like Miles points out, look at all the comments so far. Hopefully now that many more folks are applying that much more  pressure on Kaine.  

Glenn Hurowitz for calling out Kaine? Or Kaine for not opposing the power plant?

... congratulations for reading this far down in the comments.  You have way too much time on your hands. Slow week at work? Boss on a business trip?  ;)

We have 35 comments so far, and while lots of you have said, "It's not appropriate for Glenn Hurowitz to call Gov. Kaine a weasel on this issue," or "If Kaine had a friendlier legislature he'd act differently," those don't really face Hurowitz's criticism head-on.

Is anyone willing to take the position that, on the Wise County plant, Kaine is fighting for what he believes in? Is anyone willing to say Kaine is doing the right thing?

The silence on those questions is deafening.

Our ultimate goal is to stop the Wise County plant (or any new coal plant for that matter).  However, the real question regarding Kaine is not whether he's succeeded in stopping new coal plants, but whether he is really fighting to stop them.  

n/t

He is trying to work with both sides on this. It is a virtually untenable situation he finds himself in.

There is also a deafening silence on the question of where we would get the power if the plant did not go through. Yet you don't feel the urge to answer that.

I am against the plant too. I don't want any more hunting lands hurt. But I do recognize the position Kaine is in. You are more interested in being right on this singular issue than in trying to further the greater cause of progressivism. That is why you are helping Kaine's detractors. Those how won't settle for less than perfect.

You should be grateful for Tim Kaine. And you should be ashamed of yourself for stooping to such derogatory portrayals of Kaine as a weasel. The more I think about it the more miffed I get when I realize that you and Lowell both were very preachy to me when I was derided for using language that is normal by everyday standards to describe your ideas. The Weasel portrayal goes even farther in actually denying the humanity of our great Governor. Both of your credibility is taking a huge hit here.

From conservation. And if Dominion contends that Northern VA and HR have demand that outstrips supply, tell them to stop sending their power to New Jersey and save it for their Virginia customers.  

Both of those solutions are better than tearing down Gov. Kaine. I have no problem with disagreeing with him as I have done in the past. But this is just bad. Bad for conservationists who have an ally in Gov. Kaine and bad for Progressives.

Those are things that Kaine is supposed to say to Dominion! NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING that anti-power plant people do is going to convince Dominion away from wanting this thing.  It all rests on Kaine's shoulders.  

need more more more of everything is simply a mistaken part of our consumerist culture.  The lowest hanging fruit is energy efficiency, or negawatts as Amory Lovins calls it -- by far and away the cheapest and cleanest power is the power you never have to generate in the first place.  I'd go so far as to say that there's basically no reason to be adding more power until we've exhausted all the opportunities in this area first.  The potential is enormous, what's lacking is the political will to get it done.

Or where can we conserve enough power to make up for the difference.

right through Linden Virginia?  I think it's a pretty controversial issue.

I have other axes to grind, or issues to promote, but nothing comes close to global warming.  And when it comes to this issue, Kaine has truly dropped the ball.   What is his claim to fame? Creating a Climate Commission?  Honestly, that was so 1990.  Its time for action, and I have to admit, I'm getting impatient.

Lowell, thanks for the stats on what percentage coal-mining comprises of Virginia's economic output.  Less than .5%,that's incredible.  

I ask because everything usually sounds smaller as a percentage.  He also provided a non-percentage number: $1,800,000,000.  It doesn't look as small when you tack all of the zeroes on the end.

I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong, but don't latch onto one way of expressing a figure and say, oh, gee, that's insignificant.  No matter who you are, $1.8 billion is a lot of money.

$1.8 billion (and rising) for only 50 permanent full-time jobs. Let's have some fun with those numbers -- if the $1.8 billion only went to the salary of those 50 workers, over a 50-year plant lifespan, they'd be paid $720,000 per year.

OK, so I'm just goofing the numbers, but it does show what a lousy investment-to-jobs ratio this project has. We could definitely scare up more (and higher-quality) jobs for less money at vastly lower cost to the environment if we prioritized conservation and low-carbon power and trained people to be efficiency technicians and solar panel installers.

My question is how you propose to pay for it in the current economic environment, which is necessitating budget cuts due to revenue shortfalls?  My suggestion would involve taxing the aforementioned $1.8 billion in corporate revenues in such a way that we can offset tax breaks for energy efficiency--simply because I think there's something elegant about taxing environmentally-unfriendly energy production to reduce demand and increase the diversity of supply such that energy prices go down for the individual consumers, thus making strip-mining less profitable as a financial venture.

However, you can't do that just by non-chalantly writing off a $1.8B industry.  That not only eliminates the industry, it eliminates part of our tax base.

In fact, over time, not only does it pay for itself but you make money off of it.  For instance, spend a bit more on a compact fluorescent light bulb today, save $50 or whatever in energy costs and the longer life of the bulb.  Buy an energy efficient heat pump, same deal.  Also, you don't have to build new power plants in the process, saving even more money and the environment as well. And yes, I strongly agree that "there's something elegant about taxing environmentally-unfriendly energy production to reduce demand and increase the diversity of supply."

The money saved by energy efficiency eventually covers the initial outlay over time.  My question was, where are you going to come up with the money to make or encourage that initial outlay?  That's why I suggested that strangling an industry prematurely, though emotionally satisfying, it's necessarily as prudent as helping it run itself into obselesence.

You're absolutely right, of course, that we don't need to build new coal power plants to do any of this.  I do not advocate building the plant in Wise at all.  I'm only saying that we shouldn't write off half a percentage point of our state's economic output as insignificant and therefore unnecessary.  On the contray, I believe there are some very significant and necessary things we can do with that money to help encourage Virginians to be smarter energy consumers (and even producers!) in the near future.

EEC investments would be paid by utilities, and eventually by customers, no differently than grid investment for new  coal plant or transmission line.  The price breakdown per kWh based on capacity gains which can be far cheaper than investments in alternative means to increase capacity.

So why the delay?  Technology, regulation, different generation behavior, changing costs, reliabilty, customers, planning.  All of this muddies how to establish a fair rate pricing model.  Decoupling yes, but its more complicated than it sounds.  For the 20+ years decoupling has been around, it has moreorless failed to establish itself.  In 2002 CA is the first state to re-introduce decoupling (OR is the 2nd) and while it has succeeded with its varying pricing models, the results show impediments towards increased EEC.  By the summer 2006, CA then mandated demand response as the top ranked resource to be considered by state utilities before any application for new capacity.  

We have to realize that the industry was developed w/ the idea that EEC was moreorless unnecessary.  And if you look at the grid, there are some utilities serving across state lines and subject to different regulatory laws, but capacity originating from a 3rd state and subject to other regulation.  Grid expansion to meet demand is competitive but has to be fair since there are service monolopies.  Thus enter the regional transmission operator, who tries to negogiate these complexities and hash out differences.  Meanwhile some customers wish to generate their own power yet still require guaranteed backup from the grid; still others are demanding cleaner electricity from locations nowhere its source.  Meanwhile, an adjacent region's need for unforseen capacity can heavily alter the availability of resources and affect pricing, at any given day during the summer.

Taxing higher carbon producing fuels may disincentivize some utilities and politicans to move towards increased investments in renewables.  The low price for kWH from dirty coal can be used to offset the higher costs utilities will be require to invest in to site, deliver or receive these renewables.  Coal is a low priced fuel, and is conveniently more suited to export where generation capacity is limited.

Dominion should have been more open with what they knew lied around the corner.  Their public/environmental PR effort is nil.  Entering proposals to use dirty coal from Mt. Storm via a new transmission line for New Jersey and at Wise County at the 11th hour, just tells you how out-of-touch Dominion is.  The fox is guarding the hen-house and Dominion sold our politicans their agenda.  In the near term, all we can do besides protest loudly, is remind our state reps who the boss is as they contemplate the appointment of our next SCC commissioner.

I appeciate Williestarks comments that  "Then that [conservation] is where you should put your pressure".  But come on?  Are you arguing that people haven't put enough focus on saving energy?  We've been arguing that for years, and I've brought it up in every public forum, at every hearing, in news articles, meetings, and hundreds of emails to the Governor.  

Unless he is deaf, Governor Kaine has heard the argument on conservation.  
* He has heard that we rank last in spending on efficiency.
* He has heard that Californian's use half of much electricity as us.  
* His own energy plan recognizes we could use 10% less energy, and he even says that we can do it.

This isn't about the facts... it's about politics. So unless I'm supposed to take Kaine for an idiot, I've got to assume he knows the facts, and is choosing to ignore them.

you that he's a very smart guy.  Which means there's something else going on here...

"* He has heard that we rank last in spending on efficiency. "

Dominion, the SCC, and past adminstrations are to blame.  The General Assembly is more powerful then our governor, and their wasn't a push for EEC by many.  Sadly the talk was all about C02, renewables and RPS.  The VEP was first originated in 2003 and it took a change in political balance to accomplish what was passed in 2007.

"* He has heard that Californian's use half of much electricity as us."

Comparing states isn't 100% fair.  Virginia relies more on electricity to heat and cool their homes than others states who use gas or oil, or who have more temperate weather.  

"* His own energy plan recognizes we could use 10% less energy, and he even says that we can do it. "

Topping his list of strategy to meet this goal is education.  He's spot on.

EEC is a wide assortment of things, most of which involves the grid, utilties, gov't consumption, and larger business customers.  For everyday Virginians, were talking home audits, insulation, CFL address, efficient changes in habits and lifestyle, address moreorless baseline demand.  Managing AC addresss peak demand and this is where I find great fault with VEP, as it set the bar pretty low here.  For 29 years NOVEC has voluntarily offered an a/c load management program to its residential customers.  It took Dominion an act by our General Assembly to get in the game and later on in 2008, Dominion will finally arrive with only a pilot program.  8,000 random residential customers will be asked to join.  How many will trust Dominion and volunteer is going to be interesting.