Home Blog Page 2072

Dominion Virginia Power says its 30 MW Solar Partnership Program likely to top out at “13 or 14” MW

6

Delays and cost overruns plague the utility’s program to develop large rooftop solar projects. Its other solar programs aren’t doing so hot either. Meanwhile, the private market for solar is stronger than ever.

At a stakeholder meeting in Chesterfield, Virginia, on Monday, Dominion Virginia Power revealed that it expects to have installed a total of 6 megawatts (MW) of distributed solar generation by year’s end, out of the 30 MW approved by the General Assembly. But the program, which Dominion calls its Solar Partnership Program, may achieve only a total of “thirteen or fourteen megawatts” before it exhausts the $80 million that the State Corporation Commission authorized the company to spend on it.

Dominion had originally requested $110 million for the program, under which it develops large solar facilities on rooftops it leases from commercial, industrial or institutional customers in selected areas. But many solar industry members and advocates, including yours truly, argued that it should be possible to install 30 MW of solar for much less. It turns out that we were right that the private sector could do it for less, but wrong in thinking Dominion could.

The $80 million price tag works out to a cost of between $5.70 and $6.15 per watt, a number that is at least two and a half times what a commercial customer would expect to pay if it purchased a system directly. It’s vastly higher even than what residential customers are paying under the popular “solarize” programs that have sprung up around the state this year, which are producing contracts for home systems at $2.90-3.55 per watt.

Dominion analyst Nate Frost told me at the meeting that the SCC required the company to include all the related costs of the program, including financing and O&M as well as the cost of leasing rooftops from participants. But this still puts the price far above what similar projects would cost if built and owned by a private sector firm, according to an industry insider I consulted.

I followed up with Mr. Frost by email to ask for a cost breakdown, and to find out whether unique factors might have driven up the cost. Mr. Frost referred me to the company’s August 29 filing with the SCC (which, due to the SCC’s impossibly user-unfriendly website, I cannot link you to, although you can look it up yourself on the website by searching under case PUE-2011-0017).

That filing does not, unfortunately, answer any of the questions I put to Mr. Frost. But reading it does give a strong impression that the company had expected to be able to install the full 30 MW under the cost cap, and was as surprised and dismayed as the rest of us to find they were proceeding with projects way too slowly while blowing through their budget way too fast.

Of course, the point of the Solar Partnership Program is not to show whether Dominion is capable of competing with private companies, but to give the utility a chance to examine how solar integrates with the existing grid. This is important because solar is such a new and untried technology that the utility could not possibly know what might happen if it just scattered twenty or thirty megawatts’ worth of it into a system with tens of thousands of megawatts of fossil fuel generation. Sure, critics might suggest Dominion could get that information from New Jersey, which has over 1,300 MW of solar in a state half the size of Virginia. But what the critics fail to understand is that unlike Virginia, New Jersey actually encourages solar, making its electrons highly suspect. This is why we need our own study.

Monday’s stakeholder meeting revealed more bad news about Dominion’s progress on solar. Also behind schedule is the Solar Purchase Program, under which solar owners who would otherwise be eligible to net meter (using their solar power themselves) are offered 15 cents per kilowatt-hour to sell their green electricity to Dominion for resale to the Green Power Program, while purchasing “brown” power for their own use at the standard rate. Although the program has been open for more than a year and has a capacity of 3 MW, to date it has signed up only 703 kilowatts.

Solar industry members and analysts had criticized the design of the program from the outset. But again, the company’s SCC filing (included with the Solar Partnership Program filing) reveals Dominion’s surprise and chagrin that the great majority of customers who initially signed up for the program changed their minds.

Nor are customers jumping to take advantage of Dominion’s “Schedule RG,” which makes the utility a middleman for sales of renewable energy from producers to large customers, like the consumer-conscious corporations that have driven big solar installations in many other states. Thus far there have been no takers. That’s not a huge surprise to observers; Schedule RG was criticized at the time of its proposal for its cumbersome design.  (Yes, we are seeing a pattern here.)

By contrast, reported Mr. Frost, the net metering option that allows customers to install solar on their own property and for their own use has attracted 1,080 customers, who have installed a total of 8 MW to date, with 86% of these customers residential.

These aren’t huge numbers either, but they probably don’t include more than a few of the home systems currently under development through the solarize programs, which will add significantly to our residential total this year. Two projects using third-party power purchase agreements (PPAs) will also add as much as a megawatt.  

The lesson seems to be that customers are doing a better job installing solar than Dominion is. If Virginia is serious about increasing renewable energy in the state, it should free the private market to build distributed generation like rooftop solar: serving every kind of customer of every size, everywhere in the state. If the utilities want to compete on a level playing field, let them. Otherwise, they should be encouraged to focus on developing multi-megawatt, utility-scale projects for the grid. There is plenty of room for both, and we need it all.

Actually, No Sen. Warner, Voters Sent the Exact Opposite Message…or No Clear Message at All

7

According to Sen. Mark Warner, now officially reelected with Ed Gillespie’s concession a few minutes ago, this is the message voters sent a few days ago: “Congress must get to work.” But is that really the case? A few points.

1. There’s really no way to know exactly what “message” voters were sending earlier this week. Exit polls indicated that this electorate was mostly concerned about the economy, but there was no specific course of action recommended. Clearly, voters are upset, anxious, angry, frustrated, etc., but again, no clear signs of where they want to go.

2. To the extent we can glean a “message” from the candidates voters elected on Tuesday, clearly the “message” would be that they want MORE of what the Republican Party has offered the past few years. That would be, in no particular order: shutting down the government, threatening to default on the national debt, refusing to compromise on anything, working 24/7 to make President Obama “fail,” opposing anything proposed by Dems even if they were originally Republican/conservative ideas (e.g., cap and trade, Obamacare – formerly known as “Romneycare” or the 1993/94 “Republican alternative to Hillarycare”), denying science, trying to trash the environment, letting our infrastructure fall apart by not funding it, refusing to invest in America, refusing to compromise on ways to reduce the deficit/debt, imposing “brain-dead” (in Warner’s own words) sequestration on the country, etc.

3. Warner only won this election by 16,000 votes, with historically low turnout of 37% in Virginia. Thus, to the extent “voters” sent a message, it’s by a margin of under 1% of the 37% who showed up to vote. Last I checked, 1% of 37% was 0.37%. And if Ed Gillespie had gotten 16,001 more votes, what would the message from “voters” have been exactly? Totally different, or just 0.37% different, or what? Got me.

4. Of course, this is coming from the same guy who seriously believes that “the middle” is always the right answer. Let’s try this like we’re in math class. The “middle” of 0 and 10 is…yep, 5. the “middle” of 0 and 100 is…yep, 50. The “middle” of 0 and 1,000 is…yep, 500. Are those all the same answers? Obviously, not. Yet, according to Warner, they are all, by definition, the correct answers, because they are the “middle.” And while that might be true mathematically, it’s utterly nonsensical when it comes to society, politics, etc. Thus, if the correct answer used to be an exactly “middle” compromise between Dems at zero and Republicans at 10 (thus, 5 was the correct policy answer), after Republicans lurch to the far right, is 50 or 500 the correct policy answer, by definition? Does any of this make any sense whatsoever, other than being a political shtick Mark Warner has used for years now? If so, I can’t figure it out, any more than Warner could in 2008 when I asked him three times, in different ways, to explain what “radical centrism” was exactly. No answer.

5. The bottom line is that a Congress filled with more people like Joni Ernst, Cory Gardner, Barbara Comstock, and Dave Brat is most certainly NOT more likely to get anything good done for the American people. Now, it IS more likely to get some seriously horrendous s*** done (just look at the winning Republican candidates’ platforms – it’s a nightmare of climate science denial, personhood, tax cuts for the rich, taking healthcare away from people, you name it). Given that, I’d say the best we can hope for is that Congress does NOT get stuff done, other than the basic functions of government, over the next two years. Because if it does, it will only be bad for America, for the middle class, for working people, for the environment, you name it. No thanks.

Virginia News Headlines: Friday Morning

9

Here are a few national and Virginia news headlines, political and otherwise, for Friday, November 7. Good riddance to THIS week! Also note that graphic from Daily Kos – in short, when people vote in large numbers, Democrats win and America wins; when people do NOT vote, Republicans win and America loses, big time.

*http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/06/3590096/breaking-marriage-equality-just-got-a-first-class-ticket-to-the-supreme-court/

*Court upholds gay marriage bans in 4 states (Crazy ruling by appointees of George W. Bush, surprise surprise, but I’m hopeful for a 5-4 or even 6-3 Supreme Court ruling making marriage equality the law of the land across the country.)

*Where the Democrats went wrong (“…there was nothing hopeful or aspirational about the party’s message. Democrats gave their voters plenty to worry about but nothing to believe in.”)

*Senate Democrats rush to pass bills before losing their grip on power (“GOP leaders are also inclined to clear legislative decks of must-pass bills so they can start fresh.”)

*Polls Misdirected Midterm Narratives (“Polling often missed the mark, skewing coverage and expectations in the 2014 midterms.”)

*Pollsters Missed Their Mark in Many States (“If the magnitude of the Republican wave in Tuesday’s election was a surprise to many people, it was in part because it was a surprise to the people paid to predict it-the pollsters.”)

*Why Mark Warner’s race turned into a nail-biter (Simple: Dems weren’t motivated by Warner and his “radical centrism,” “both sides” nonsense. And when I say “nonsense,” I mean that literally: can anyone tell me what “radical centrism” even MEANS? Uhhhhhh.)

*Pipeline opponents meet with federal officials (Senators Kaine and Warner should come out strongly against this pipeline.)

*Our view: Should Warner have run to the left? (Not “the left” per se — how about just run/act like a Democrat?)

*State panel created to get rid of tax loopholes has scrapped zero (“The panel, led by state Sen. Jeff McWaters, shown, has voted to retain five big tax breaks that together reduce state revenue by some $1.7 billion a year.” Typical Virginia corruption; keep subsidizing the same industries that give large amounts of $$$ to McWaters et al.)

*Mark Warner promises to be more of a ‘disrupter’ (“He says his narrow victory is not a sign that moderation doesn’t play well anymore.” No, sorry, but the reason we haven’t had results since 2010 is because of the Tea Party/Republican Party. Period.)

*Calibration problems blamed in Va. Beach vote

*Crash of Va. elections database worries Arlington registrar (The General Assembly needs to provide the Board of Elections with the resources to fix this, ASAP.)

*Answers needed in technology failures (“Virginia’s State Board of Elections has more than 11 months to figure out what went wrong Tuesday night and take steps to prevent it from happening again. Officials have much work to do.”)

*Why Polls Missed A Shocker In Virginia’s Senate Race (This doesn’t really answer the question.)

*Public Square to address politics in Va. after Tuesday’s election

*Candidates surface in race to succeed Comstock in Virginia House (This will be 100% a “base” election; Dems had better motivate it big time!)

*Governor wants clarity on state’s liability in rocket disasters

*Arlington weighing adjustments to school boundaries

*Forget any plans to rake leaves as wind gusts may reach 30 mph (“With the winds will come crisp, dry air. Temps may reach low-to-mid 50s.”)

NY Times analysis: Virginia turnout dropped most in Democratic areas

5

According to an analysis by the New York Times: “Some weak Democratic performances in the midterm elections Tuesday are hard to explain. Virginia is not.” So what happened in Virginia? Simple: turnout was way down, with the largest declines “in Democratic-leaning areas” (while “[t]urnout in Republican-leaning areas in Virginia was at levels fairly typical for a competitive midterm election”). Why? In large part, because Warner et al. assumed he had this one in the bag, therefore:

In 2012, Democrats mounted significant mobilization and campaigning efforts in Virginia. They didn’t in 2014. The surprisingly close race highlights why they’re needed.

You know the rest of the story…

Memo to Newt: I certainly hope so!!!

0

Newt Gingrich (who believes marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman then ANOTHER woman and ANOTHER woman . . . ) was releasing brain farts on CNN today.

Yesterday President Obama put the GOTP on notice that, if they didn’t get busy on certain issues, he would take executive action.

Newt characterized this as Obama “punching the Republicans in the face.”

Well, I certainly hope so!!!  In fact, I really, really hope Obama doesn’t stop at punching them in the face — a few body slams, choke holds, crotch kicks, a little eye gouging — you know — do to them what they’ve been doing to us for 30 years.

Start with Newt.

Graph: Mark Warner’s 2014 Vote Total in Historical Perspective

15

The following are selected vote totals from non-presidential-election-year, statewide races in Virginia since 2001. Obviously, the state’s population has grown a great deal since 2001 (e.g., 4.1 million registered voters in 2001, 5.4 million registered voters in 2012), so all else being equal, one would assume that the winning candidate would get more votes than they would have 13 years ago. Which makes it all the more striking that Mark Warner’s campaign in 2014 managed to get just 1,069,451 votes in, essentially, a two-way race (Robert Sarvis got just 53,201 votes). That’s lower than Terry McAuliffe got last year in a three-way race (in which Roberts Sarvis got 6.5% of the vote), lower than Jim Webb in the mid-term election of 2006 (Webb got 1,175,606 votes that year), also lower than George Allen in 2006 (he got 1,166,277), lower than Mark Herring in 2013 (Herring got 1,103,777, edging Mark Obenshain by just 165 votes), etc. What do I make of this? In short, it appears that Democratic voters were less motivated to turn out this Tuesday for Mark Warner than they were for McAuliffe/Northam/Herring last year and for Jim Webb in 2006. Why? That’s a question I’m throwing out there, but it’s hard for me to see how Warner worked to motivate the “base” (and remember, these mid-terms are “base elections”) to turn out. Your thoughts?

VA-SEN Cartogram Map

3

I made a cartogram map of the 2014 Virginia Senate results: the number of votes cast in a locality determines its size. Localities where Warner (D) won a plurality/majority are in blue; localities where Gillespie (R) won a plurality/majority are in red.

The image is posted at Daily Kos in this diary:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/06/1342614/-VA-SEN-Cartogram-Map

Are Broadcast TV Political Ads a Huge Waste of Money? VA-10 as a Case Study.

0

I’ve said for years that broadcast TV advertising, particularly in places like the expensive and fragmented DC Metro market, provide an extremely low “bang for the buck”/”return on investment” to Congressional candidates. Now we have some new numbers which illustrate my point: “More than $111 million has been spent on broadcast television ads for U.S. House candidates since Labor Day, but more than $80 million of that went to ads airing outside the candidates’ districts, according to data by Targeted Victory” (see Targeted Victory’s analysis here). Yep, $80 million out of $111 million outright wasted. That’s a pathetically low “bang for the buck” by almost any metric. But wait, it gets worse!



Take Virginia’s 10th CD for instance. If you run broadcast TV ads in the DC Metro market, it costs a fortune, but what percentage reach: a) areas outside the 10th CD; b) people in the 10th CD who aren’t likely voters? As for part a of this question, that’s easy. See this Designated Market Map for the DC area: in short, your broadcast TV ad will reach the eastern panhandle of West Virginia (not in the 10th CD), large swaths of Maryland (not in the 10th CD), DC (not in the 10th CD), Arlington (ditto), Alexandria (ditto), Fairfax County (mostly ditto), Prince William County (ditto), Stafford/Spotsylvania/etc. (ditto). All that money is TOTALLY WASTED. In the end, perhaps 1/7th (14%) or so of market reached by a broadcast TV ad in the DC Metro market reaches the 10th CD. That means 86% of a DC Metro market broadcast TV ad buy is essentially “bleed” — not reaching the targeted audience at all, ergo wasted.

Within the 10th CD, it’s important to point out that most people reached by a broadcast TV ad in a mid-term election like this will not be likely voters, let alone what you really want: likely AND persuadable voters in the district. The number of those people reached by your (super-expensive) ad? Miniscule. Bang for the buck? Less than miniscule. Of course, the ad also reached UNlikely voters who might be persuaded to vote, and I’m told that broadcast TV ads do “move the numbers,” but I haven’t seen any serious, controlled, scientific studies comparing: a) effectiveness of broadcast TV advertising in “moving the numbers” and b) effectiveness of other advertising techniques – radio, direct mail, print, social media/digital, etc. – in “moving the numbers.”

Anyway, just for fun, let’s say the 10th CD makes up 14% of the DC-area media market. Then, let’s assume 40% turnout of registered voters — or to put it another way, maybe 25% of the total district population. Then, let’s consider what percentage of that 25% are truly persuadable — 10%-20% perhaps? Multiply these numbers together and you end up spending a huge amount of money on TV to reach…what? Again, in fairness, those ads also will reach voters who might not even have known there was an election, or didn’t know anything about the candidates, or might not have been intending to vote but decided to after being barraged by TV ads. That’s hard to measure, but it certainly could increase the value of the broadcast TV ads. The question, by how much?

Anyway, the big question is why campaigns keep returning to the expensive, non-targeted broadcast TV advertising “well?” The question “cui bono” — “to whose benefit?” ) comes to mind. Think about it: who benefits from this huge expenditure of money? Obviously, it’s: a) the people who make and buy these ads; and b) the TV stations that are paid handsome sums to run them. The question is, does the candidate benefit, especially when one considers “opportunity cost” – could that money have been spent more efficiently, effecitvely, etc? I’m skeptical.

The sad reality, of course, is that there’s a ton of money sloshing around out there, looking for a home, in the campaign-advertising-industrial complex. Those people, with their strongly vested interest in seeing that money spent, are highly motivated to convince actual and potential candidates that their services are invaluable, that if the candidate only does what they the consultants tell the candidate to do, he/she can WIN WIN WIN! (getting excited yet? heh) And time and again, it works. Plus, of course, if campaign managers simply follow the script that “everyone” follows, it’s “safe” in the sense that if they lose, they can say they did what everyone said they should do. In short, it’s a great CYA move to follow the cookie-cutter model towards campaign management: raise a ton of money, save it up until the end, run scads of broadcast TV ads.

Is there an alternative to this model? In theory, of course there is. For instance, how about having the candidate, instead of spending all their time raising and spending money, do…other stuff? Yes, I realize it’s tough, given the absence of earned media, the collapse of newspaper coverage, etc. But theoretically, they COULD shift their resources to field and social/digital media, targeted radio and in-district cable TV, niche publications (e.g., Korean/Spanish/etc. language newspapers and radio stations), print advertising in local papers, stuff like that. That would be much less expensive, but would also be a gazillion times more focused locally, within the district, reducing the absurd “bleed” that’s inherent to broadcast TV advertising. As an added bonus, the candidate wouldn’t have to spend 8 hours a day or whatever on miserable “call time,” and could instead be out knocking doors, attending community events/festivals, doing interviews, studying up on policy issues and working on their presentation skills so they can kick butt in debates and other public forums, etc, etc.

Again, though, there’s a huge class of consultants out there who don’t get paid if the above model takes hold. Which is why they’ll tell you it’s crazy to change, that of COURSE you need broadcast TV ads, blah blah blah. Just one thing: when you’re considering whether or not you should believe these consultants, just keep one thing in mind that they have a super-strong vested financial/economic interest in persuading everyone that they’re right. So take their advice with the appropriately-sized grain (pillar?) of salt.

Virginia News Headlines: Thursday Morning

15

Here are a few national and Virginia news headlines, political and otherwise, for Thursday, November 6.

*Obama: ‘I hear you’ (“President vows to work with Republicans”)

*Democrats Have Their Schlitz Beer Reckoning

*Dear Democratic Party Are You Ready To Fight Yet?

*The Democrats Have Two Choices Now: Gridlock or Annihilation

*Democrats learn tough tech lesson (“emocratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Deputy Executive Director Matt Canter conceded that this year’s GOP wave overwhelmed anything the Democrats could muster on the digital and data front.”)

*Democrats’ 2014 defeat is worse than it was in 2010 (“Yet Democrats and Obama can’t simply blame defeat on an inevitable falloff in their midterm vote. They failed to give the faithful enough reason to cast a ballot.”)

*A Republican-controlled Congress

won’t be good for federal workers


*Here Is What The GOP Promises To Do With Its New Senate Majority

*The Fight for Abortion Rights Just Got a Whole Lot Harder (“Activists thought they had a chance to expand reproductive rights. The Red Wave put an end to that.”)

*2014: The Year of Koch (“And six other key takeaways on big money in the 2014 elections.”)

*On his way to a slim victory in a changing Va., Warner may have wooed wrong voters (“All of it has left some to wonder whether Warner would have won bigger if he had eschewed the middle and embraced the left, and whether the winning path for moderates that Warner forged during his own bid for governor 13 years ago is becoming extinct.”)

*How Ed Gillespie nearly slayed Mark Warner (“Larry Sabato, the University of Virginia political scientist and elections analyst, said the 97 percent hit ‘nearly killed’ Warner: The senator didn’t realize the extent to which voters now see him as a partisan Democrat.”)

*Why the Virginia Senate Race Was So Close (“By hitting Mark Warner for voting with President Obama, Ed Gillespie nearly knocked off the popular Democratic senator.”)

*Mark Warner and the (Almost) Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Night

*A Closer Look at Virginia’s (Low) Turnout

*Warner camp confident senator not giving up seat; challenger not giving up

*Warner-Gillespie race takes pollsters by surprise (Yep, major polling #FAIL on this one.)

*Experts: Funding a Factor in Close VA Senate Race

*Mullins steps down as head of Republican Party of Virginia

*Anthony Brown, other area Democrats get wake-up call from voters on the economy

*Eight Virginia congressional districts return incumbents

*Kaine asks feds for help in facing sea level rise

*Largest job-creation announcement in decades brings hope to Appomattox

*State election officials take a look into Virginia Beach poll issues

*Montgomery County crowd registers opposition to pipeline

*New era for schools in Beach, Norfolk

*Our view: Dante to Democrats: Abandon all hope (“However, Tuesday’s election answered one question very clearly: Can Democrats ever hope to win again in Southwest Virginia? The answer to that was “no,” several thousand times no.”)

*McAuliffe calls for full financial review of spaceport deal with Orbital

*A rainy, sloppy day ahead with

only a slight chance for sunshine

Map: Where Was the “Crossover” Voting in Arlington Yesterday?

0

Courtesy of Ben Tribbett, blogger and now map maker extraordinaire! 🙂

A map of the results in Arlington yesterday in the County Board race. Map shows crossover voting- green precincts were under 40% crossover, blue 40-50%, purple 50-60%, red 60-70% and yellow 70% and above.

Biggest crossover was 80.8% in Arlington Forest precinct where Vihstadt won by 29.4% while Warner won by 51.4%. Smallest crossover was 27.4% in Crystal Plaza precinct where Warner won by 34.6% while Howze won by 7.2%.