Virginia Environmental News Roundup – utility regulation special report

The Climate Action Alliance of the Valley is pleased to provide Harrisonburg’s The Citizen with a monthly survey of energy and environmental news stories about Virginia.

With their permission, we are re-posting these pieces here after they appear in The Citizen.

The link to this piece as first published by The Citizen is HERE.

Editor’s Note: This is a special installment of the periodic contributed news roundups about statewide environmental news. This piece highlights selected utility reform bills that the Virginia General Assembly considered in 2021, with links to further coverage in various media outlets. Future perspectives will cover other important 2021 legislation, about energy, energy efficiency, and other environmental matters.

During 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic, most utility customers enjoyed a moratorium on paying utility bills. Anticipating the lifting of that moratorium, some legislators examined existing state law with a view to identifying and addressing some that favored utilities over consumer. The result was introduction of several bills that, together, would expand the State Corporation Commission’s authority to regulate Virginia’s investor-owned monopoly utilities in a more balanced manner than current law allows. All but one were filed in the House of Delegates.

Although consolidated and modified versions of these bills passed the House, all failed in the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee. Thus, the full Senate never had the opportunity to vote for or against them. The same Senate Commerce and Labor Committee also killed the one bill introduced in that chamber. Below is a table of the major bills and whether our area Delegates and State Senators supported them. Sen. Mark Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg) sits on the Commerce and Labor committee.

Bill No.PurposeDel. WiltDel. GilbertDel. RunionSen. HangerSen. Obenshain
HB 1914Give SCC discretion on counting utility costs against revenuesNoNoNoN/ANo
HB 1984Give SCC added discretion to determine fair rate of return & order rate changesNoNoNoN/ANo
HB 2049Prevent using overearnings for new projects rather than refundingNoNoNoN/ANo
HB 2200Change SCC procedures re setting fair rate of return, crediting 100% overearnings to customers, & eliminating $50M refund limit, starting 2021.YesNoNoN/ANo
HB 2160Give SCC authority to set fair rate of return & require crediting 100% overearnings to customers rather than current 70%NoNoNoN/ANo
SB 1292Require crediting 100% overearnings to customers rather than current 70%N/AN/AN/AN/ANo

As noted in the brief descriptions above, the bills were designed to lower ratepayers’ bills, return excess charges to ratepayers, and give the SCC the ability to set fair ratesAdvocates and bill sponsors, as well as those legislators who supported these bills, took note of the fact that Virginia’s largest monopoly-owned utility—Dominion Energy—had been successful in avoiding periodic SCC review since passage of a 2015 law. After that, it had become obvious that Dominion had overcharged its customers around an estimated $500 million.

A previous General Assembly restored the periodic SCC review, to occur every three years starting 2021. That review will be underway soon when Dominion files the necessary paperwork with the SCC. The promise of the above 2021 bills was to enable the SCC to ensure that such large overcharges would not recur and that any refunds it ordered would in fact go to the overcharged customers. The latter was a priority because of other prior legislation that allowed Dominion to (1) hold onto 30% of any overcharges and return only 70% and (2) make a case that it should keep all overcharges and apply them to the costs of future approved projects.

Despite strong support in the House of Delegates and strong advocacy by many individuals and groups, none of the bills became law. It is likely efforts to achieve these and similar reforms will happen for the 2022 General Assembly session. It might be useful to understand your representatives’ reasons for their votes on this year’s bills.

2021 Legislation That Needs Your Support

Dear Climate Friend:

As you know, the Virginia General Assembly is now in session.  

CAAV’s Legislation and Elections committee has identified climate-friendly bills that, if enacted, would make a difference.  Below is a very brief summary of each one.

Please contact your Delegate and Senator, and urge them to support these bills.  And please act quickly.  The GA is moving rapidly through a great many bills.  If you need the name and contact information for your Delegate and/or Senator, click here:

Clean Transportation Bills

HB 1965–the Clean Cars bill.  Allows State Air Pollution Control Board to establish ZEV (zero emissions vehicles) mandate beginning with 2025 vehicles

1) Environmental benefits – 48% of VA’s greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) come from the transportation sector. More LEV and ZEV vehicles will help reduce this pollution. 

2) More ZEV options – Currently many dealerships in VA do not offer ZEVs because they do not want to or because they cannot get them. This law would be a signal to the manufacturers that VA is serious about ZEVs and they will send more ZEVs to VA to be sold.

3) Support the growing clean energy economy – More ZEVs on the road means VA will need to build more EV charging stations and hire more EV technicians, generating good-paying jobs for Virginians. 

4) Increase demand for clean electricity – as more ZEVs are deployed, consumer awareness of the source of their electricity will grow, and consumers will want the utilities to provide them with cleaner electricity.

5) Long lead time – the 2025 implementation gives dealerships ample time to prepare for this transition.

HB 1979 EV Rebate bill

1) A state rebate of $2500 will reduce the upfront cost of a new or used EV.

2) This rebate will provide an additional $2,000 to low income Virginians, promoting equity.

3) Cash on the hood rebate reduces the final purchase or lease price of the EV.

Utility Reform Bills


Virginians currently pay the sixth highest energy bills in the country, bills that for more than 75% of Virginia households are considered unaffordable by federal standards. Too many Virginians are desperate for economic relief, particularly when it comes to paying monthly bills.  Prioritizing the passage of consumer protection legislation to ensure Virginians are not overcharged by their energy providers should be a major goal of Virginia’s legislators.

With a rate case coming up later in 2021 for Virginia’s largest energy provider, this issue could not be more urgent. If the General Assembly does not act this session to protect consumers and restore oversight authority to regulators, Virginians are poised to lose out on the over $500 million they’ve been overcharged by Dominion Energy since 2017 and, even worse, may continue to be forced to pay bills that are much higher than they should be moving forward. These bills— HB 2160, HB 2200, HB 2049, HB 1984, HB 1914, and HB 1835—will provide much greater balance between utility and customer interests than now exists under Virginia’s “regulated utility mode.”

Why These Bills Matter

  • Virginians pay the 6th highest energy bills in the country, bills unaffordable for 75% of Virginia households based on federal energy burden standards.
  • Dominion Energy has overcharged customers by at least $502 million since 2017. Virginians deserve this money back.
  • Dominion Energy customers have already seen their bills increase by more than 25% in the last decade, and these bills are projected to rise even more as costs for Grid Modernization Act, Clean Economy Act, etc. are added to customers’ bills. Virginians urgently need rate relief.

Bill Specifics

HB 2160 Preventing Utilities from Keeping Customer Overcharges as Unmerited Profit Bonuses

Chief Patron: Delegate Kathy Tran; Chief Co-Patron: Delegate Schuyler VanValkenburg

As regulated utility monopolies benefit from no competition, the State Corporation Commission (SCC) is tasked with establishing their fair – but not unlimited – authorized profit margin. However, Virginia is the only state in the country whose legal code mandates that specific utilities – Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power (APCo) – receive profit bonuses tacked onto this authorized profit margin. These bonuses are not tied to performance, but rather are granted to the utilities as a reward for overcharging their customers. This bill removes provisions that allow utilities to keep customer overcharges as bonuses and instead restores SCC authority to fully refund 100% of overcharges back to customers.  The Bill:

1. Eliminates provision that allows utilities to keep a bonus profit of 0.7% above their authorized profit, or return on equity (ROE).

a. Under current law, Dominion and APCo get an automatic profit bonus of 0.7% tacked onto whatever profit margin the SCC sets.

b. Virginia is the only state in the country with a mandatory “earnings band” or “earnings collar” like this written into law.

c. Unless changed, this provision would allow Dominion to keep $136 million of customer overcharges (based on overcharges determined in the 2020 SCC Annual Report).

2. Eliminates provision that allows Dominion to pocket an additional 30% of customer overcharges above the 0.7% earnings collar.

a. Under current law, if a utility’s revenue exceeds the 0.7% profit bonus, they are further allowed to keep 30% of customer overcharges as a bonus.

b. Unless changed, this provision would allow Dominion to keep $110 million of customer overcharges (based on overcharges determined in the 2020 SCC Annual Report).  Eliminating these two provisions will prevent Dominion from pocketing $246 million of the $502.7 million it has overcharged Virginians since 2017.

HB 2200 Restoring SCC Authority to Balance the Interest of Utilities and Ratepayers

Chief Patron: Delegate Jay Jones; Chief Co-Patron: Delegate Lee Ware

This ratepayer protection bill makes minor changes to Virginia’s code aimed at restoring State Corporation Commission (SCC) discretion over certain accounting and ratemaking functions that are currently mandated in law to the utility’s benefit.  The Bill:

1. Changes “shall” to “may” in key sections of Virginia’s code.

a. This bill takes specific sections of the code that dictate that the State Corporation

Commission (SCC) shall follow pro-utility provisions and changes it so that the SCC may follow them, if the SCC decides such action benefits customers.

b. This leaves the majority of Virginia’s utility-friendly code provisions intact but gives the SCC discretion over whether these provisions should be implemented during a rate case.

2. Allows the SCC to balance utility and ratepayer interests.

a. Utilities retain ability to recover all costs and their full authorized profit, but the SCC regains authority to determine the time period over which the utilities recover those costs.

b. SCC will be able to (i) prevent utilities from overcharging ratepayers in the future and (ii) order refunds for past overcharges.

3. Restores full SCC discretionary authority over:

a. The length of the recovery period for certain large-scale utility costs (storm expenses, metering retirements, etc.).

b. The cost recovery mechanism utilities can use for large-scale infrastructure projects.

c. Setting utility rates and authorized profit (ROE) moving forward.

d. Issuing full refunds to customers when they have been overcharged by their utility.

HB 2049 Eliminating Roadblocks for Electricity Rate Cuts

Chief Patron: Delegate Dan Helmer; Chief Co-Patrons: Delegate Sally Hudson, Delegate Suhas Subramanyam

This bill allows the State Corporation Commission (SCC) to set future electricity rates that fairly balance

ratepayer and utility interests by eliminating roadblocks currently preventing the SCC from ordering rate reductions.  The Bill:

1. Eliminates $50 million cap in rate reductions.

a. Under current law, the SCC is prevented from lowering rates by more than $50 million, only for Dominion Energy, regardless of whether analysis justifies a much larger rate cut.

b. In recent years, Dominion has overcharged Virginians by more than $300 million/year.

2. Allows SCC to set forward-going rates based on forward-going costs.

a. The SCC is legally barred from reducing Dominion Energy’s electricity rates in the future unless Dominion has been required to pay refunds for overcharges in the past.

b. In practice, this has allowed Dominion to dodge rate reductions by writing off large past expenses in a single year to eliminate refunds, thus preventing the SCC from lowering rates solely based on non-recurring past expenses.

3. Restores SCC authority to determine the recovery period for large costs.

a. Allows the SCC to consider ratepayer and shareholder interests when establishing appropriate cost recovery periods for large expenses like storm damage and metering retirements.

b. This eliminates a key accounting gimmick utilities can use to unfairly keep future rates higher than they should be.

c. This bill brings the rest of Virginia’s code in line with the General Assembly’s decision last year to restore SCC authority over cost recovery periods for retiring generation facilities.

4. Ensures the SCC can set rates as low as possible while still ensuring the utilities can recover their full cost of service and authorized profit but not so high as to continue overcharging customers.

HB 1984 Electric utilities; triennial review proceeding by SCC, fair rates of return. 

Chief Patron:  Sally Hudson, Dan Helmer (chief co-patron), Suhas Subramanyam (chief co-patron),  Dawn Adams, Lee Carter, Carrie Coyner, Patrick Hope, Jay Jones, Mark Keam, Kaye Kory, Sam Rasoul, Ibraheem Samirah, Shelly Simonds, Lee Ware

The Bill:

1. Enables utilities to build new infrastructure projects and guarantees that the utilities can recover the full cost of those projects – plus a guaranteed profit – through either base rates or rate adjustment clauses (RACs).

2. Rolls back a third, yet-untested cost recovery mechanism, the Customer Credit Reinvestment Offset (CCRO).

a. CCROs are designed to allow utilities to instantaneously recover all of the costs for large infrastructure projects by using customer overcharges to instantly pay themselves back for new investments.

b. This is a departure from normal capital investing, where utilities recover their costs over time.

3. Allows the SCC to issue refunds when customers are overcharged.

a. Removing the CCRO mechanism is crucial to guaranteeing customer refunds because CCROs allow a utility to keep the money it has overcharged customers to pay itself back for capital investments.

b. Without this change, customers could lose the over $500 million they have been overcharged by Dominion Energy since 2017 (2020 SCC Annual Report).

4. Increases the SCC’s ability to lower energy prices moving forward.

a. The SCC is legally only allowed to lower a utility’s future rates if it finds that the utility was overcharging its customers in the past.

b. Because CCROs allow utilities to “disappear” past overcharges, if all of a utility’s overearnings are used up by CCROs, then the SCC cannot lower future rates.

c. This is true even though CCROs are all one-off, non-recurring costs.

HB 1914 Electric Utilities Period Costs

Patrons––Helmer, Cole, J.G., Hudson, Subramanyam, Bourne, Coyner, Davis, Hope and Lopez

The Bill:

Requires the Commission to conduct a review for a Phase II Utility in 2021, utilizing the four successive 12-month test periods beginning January 1, 2017, and ending December 31, 2020, with subsequent reviews on a triennial basis utilizing the three successive 12-month test periods ending December 31 immediately preceding the year in which such review proceeding is conducted.

HB 1835 Electric utilities; rate reductions.  

Chief Patron Suhas Subramanyam; Alfonso Lopez

The Bill:

  • Eliminates provisions that limit any rate reduction ordered by the SCC in the first triennial review of Dominion Energy Virginia after January 1, 2021, to $50 million in annual revenues.
  • Provides that in any triennial review, regardless of whether (1) the Commission has ordered bill credits, (2) the utility earned above its authorized rate of return during the test period under review, or (3) the utility has made a request regarding any customer credit reinvestment offsets, the Commission may order any rate reduction it deems necessary and appropriate unless it finds that the resulting rates will not provide the utility with the opportunity to (i) fully recover its costs of providing its services and (ii) earn not less than a fair combined rate of return on its generation and distribution services.

HB 1994, patron Chris Runion

This bill extends the small agricultural generator benefits to businesses that sell Virginia agricultural products, businesses like wineries, breweries, distilleries, and farm markets.  Originally, only farmers growing crops and raising farm animals were eligible for small agricultural generator benefits.

This post is being updated as CAAV L&E members offer input.

George Hirschmann

GeorgeHirschmannGeorge Hirschmann (I) is retired from working at WHSV television station as their Chief Meteorologist. He is running for reelection to the Harrisonburg City Council after first being elected in 2016. According to a WHSV news report, “if re-elected, he will continue to focus on elderly and homeless needs in the city and the needs of teachers and schools,” among other goals. Find more about Mr. Hirschmann on his City Council webpage.

See his response to CAAV’s Questionnaire below the list of questions:

1) Do you support the 50×25 campaign?

2) How would you implement the 3 goals of the 50×25 campaign?

3) What would you do to increase or facilitate the adoption of renewable energies or solar in City and School buildings?

4) How would you prioritize city and state resources for addressing environmental justice concerns, specifically energy efficiency for low income housing?

5) What do you think about recycling?

6) Is there anything Harrisonburg can do to reduce transportation emissions, the largest sector of climate change emissions in VA and the United States?

I believe in science and the fact that humans have an effect on the environment. As your Councilman I support recycling, the efforts the Harrisonburg Electric Commission is making for solar, and I support improving connectivity within the city for waking and bicycle use. We must continue to clean Blacks Run and the Shenandoah River. I believe we should continue working with JMU and innovators at the University to combat pollution and Climate Change. Rain barrels have popped up across the city which has helped with saving water and sustainable gardening. 

During my four years on council I am proud of my Independent record and ability to work with all groups in the city to make Harrisonburg a more inclusive community with equity for all. Please visit my website for more information and contact me directly. Please remember social distancing and to wear a mask to protect our vulnerable community members. 

It is an honor to serve you and the people of Harrisonburg,

Councilman George Hirschmann 

Kathleen Kelley

KathleenKelleyKathleen Kelley (R) is a medical doctor practicing integrative and alternative medicine who is running for Harrisonburg City Council. According to an article in the Daily News-Record, she would like to help “make the city ‘crisis-proof'” by expanding business and education opportunities in the city, among other goals. Find out more about her campaign at the Kelley4Council website and Facebook page.

CAAV has made multiple attempts to receive responses to the questionnaire from Kathleen Kelley in hopes of discovering and sharing her opinions on these issues. As of the start of voting on September 18, she has declined to answer the questionnaire.

CAAV Endorses Sally Newkirk for SVEC Board

Sally Newkirk is running for a seat on the SVEC board.

The Climate Action Alliance of the Valley endorses Sally Newkirk’s bid for a seat on the board of the Shenandoah Valley Electric Co-op (SVEC). A 27-year Shenandoah Valley resident, Sally will work to expand SVEC’s use of renewable energy, bring reliable broadband to the many residents of our area who lack it, and will work to help residents who are having trouble paying their electric bill.

Co-op members will have the opportunity to vote for Sally through ballots received in the mail. These can be mailed in or recorded online. In the meantime, you can learn more about Sally by visiting her website: You can also follow her on Facebook here.

Elizabeth McGowan covered this election for the Energy News Network on July 15, 2020: Virginia co-op board challengers aim to nudge utilities forward on clean energy

SCC Must Extend Moratorium on Utility Disconnections

Update from the Virginia State Corporation Commission:

SCC Extends Ban on Utility Service Cut-offs to August 31

June 12, 2020

RICHMOND – The State Corporation Commission (SCC) has extended the moratorium on service disconnections for utility customers due to unpaid bills caused by the COVID-19 public health emergency. The SCC order extends the ban through August 31, 2020 and gives the General Assembly time to address the economic impact of the crisis on utility customers.
During the crisis period, electricity, natural gas, water and sewer utilities regulated by the SCC must offer extended payment plans with no late fees or reconnection charges to residential and small business customers whose unpaid bill amounts are the result of COVID-19 issues.

Read more here.

The Climate Action Alliance of the Valley has joined other organizations in calling on the Virginia State Corporation Commission to extend its moratorium on utility service disconnections during the pandemic from June 15 to the end of summer. Clean Virginia’s communication director issued this press release on behalf of all the groups involved:


Cassady Craighill, Clean Virginia Communications Director, 828-817-3328

SCC Must Extend Moratorium on Utility Disconnections; Legislative Action Next Step
Environmental groups unite behind call for extension and data release from utilities

 June 5, 2020

Charlottesville — Eleven environmental and marginalized community advocacy organizations today joined statewide calls for the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) to extend its moratorium on utility disconnections during the COVID-19 pandemic. A joint comment submitted by the organizations questions the SCC’s assumption that a moratorium extension will harm ratepayers given the lack of available and relevant data from regulated public utilities including how many Virginia customers have unpaid utility bills, the reserves of each utility, and the amount utilities have overcharged customers in previous years.

The comment includes:

  • A request for the SCC to extend the mandatory moratorium on utility service disconnections until at least the end of the summer.
  • A request for the SCC to obtain weekly data from all regulated public utilities including how many customers have unpaid utility bills, the number of customers disconnected in the current year, and information regarding the financial strength and debt reserves of each utility.
  • A request for the SCC to solicit proposals from all affected utilities on steps those utilities can take to restart their energy efficiency programs or develop alternative programs that reduce consumption while protecting the health of all involved.

Virginia’s largest electricity provider Dominion Energy has declined to comment on how many residential and non-residential customers have unpaid bills or were disconnected in the current year. Dominion has overcharged its customers by $1.3 billion since 2015.

The SCC’s state order suspending disconnections is set to expire on June 15, 2020. Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Clean Virginia, Climate Action Alliance of the Valley, League of Conservation Voters Virginia, New Virginia Majority, Piedmont Environmental Council, Rappahannock League for Environmental Protection, Sierra Club Virginia Chapter, Southern Environmental Law Center, Virginia Conservation Network, and Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy signed the joint comment to the SCC, due today.

READ the joint comment to the SCC.

Quotes From Participating Organizations:

 Harrison Wallace, Chesapeake Climate Action Network – Virginia Director

 “It’s the SCC’s job to protect consumers, not corporations. But Dominion is planning to give their shareholders fat dividends during a time of economic turmoil and also planning to give out targeted grants in the name of justice. If they can do that, they can help struggling families keep the lights on and cool their homes during the hottest season of the year.”

Brennan Gilmore, Clean Virginia – Executive Director

 “Families should not face electricity disconnection while Dominion Energy unjustly transfers hundreds of millions in overcharges every year from Virginians to its top executives and shareholders. The State Corporation Commission should provide relief to struggling Virginia families and small businesses by extending the moratorium on utility disconnections and demanding transparency from utilities to better understand the scope of the problem.”

 Jo Anne St. Clair, Climate Action Alliance of the Valley – Chair

 “The Climate Action Alliance of the Valley believes that the SCC must be mindful that calamities like the current pandemic, and like the consequences of our ongoing climate crisis, usually burden those who are least able to adapt and recover quickly. The pandemic is not over; its negative economic effects will be with us all, especially the many Virginians who chronically have a serious burden meeting their utility bills. The SCC must consider this reality.”

Michael Town, League of Conservation Voters Virginia – Executive Director

 “We should not be debating whether or not to extend a moratorium on utility shut-offs in the midst of a global pandemic and economic depression that is especially devastating for low-income neighborhoods and communities of color,” said Michael Town, executive director of the Virginia League of Conservation Voters. “The moratorium should remain in place until the pandemic is over and Virginia is able to implement just and fair utility reform to ensure our most vulnerable citizens are never put in this position again.”

Kenneth Gilliam, New Virginia Majority – Policy Director

“We are very much still in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has had greater economic and health effects, likely to be long-lasting, on low-income households and Latinx and Black communities in Virginia. The economic repercussions of the crisis are not equally distributed by race or income across the state; however, measures, such as the moratorium on utility disconnections, provides much needed fiscal relief to low-income customers who generally pay more for energy and are predicted to have greater loss of income throughout the rest of 2020, and well into 2021.”

 Kate Addleson, Sierra Club Virginia Chapter – Director

“The COVID 19 pandemic has thrown Virginia into a serious economic downturn with many families across the commonwealth facing job loss and financial strain. With Virginia’s hottest months still ahead of us, the SCC must extend the moratorium on utility shut-offs at least through the summer to ensure families and businesses aren’t subject to life-threatening heat. The commission should take steps to offer utility bill assistance and extended repayment programs during this difficult time.”

Will Cleveland, Southern Environmental Law Center – Senior Attorney

With the summer heat bearing down on us, we must do all we can to help people who, as a result of this pandemic, struggle to pay their utility bills. Expanded utility-sponsored energy efficiency programs, bill assistance and payment plans, and data collection are necessary to help all Virginians come through this difficult time.”


In the News

Augusta Free Press, June 5, 2020: Herring requests another extension on Virginia utility disconnection suspensions

“In his filing with the SCC, Herring notes that Gov. Ralph Northam has extended his state of emergency indefinitely and explains that ‘the existing moratorium should be extended to a point in the future after Virginia’s economy has had an opportunity to resume, allowing impacted citizens an opportunity to regain some financial footing.'”

Virginia Mercury, June 8, 2020, by Sarah Vogelsong: Should it stay or should it go? Little consensus on utility disconnection ban

“Little consensus has emerged from the welter of recommendations put forward by investor-owned utilities, 58 legislators, environmental and consumer protection groups, state electric cooperatives and the Attorney General’s Office as of the June 5 deadline for input set by the State Corporation Commission.”

There’s a serious threat to Net Metering—Urgent Action by Solar Advocates Needed!

Update July 16:
We just found out that FERC has dismissed the New England Ratepayers Association motion to attack net metering on the federal level. This is a major victory for solar rights. …
– Aaron Sutch, Program Director, Solar United Neighbors of Virginia

safe_imageA 501(c)(4) group called the New England Ratepayers Association petitioned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to change the regulation of net metering compensation from the states to the federal government. If FERC approves, the result would upset the long-established system of state Commissions to regulate retail rates and net metering programs. Such a change could jeopardize existing and new solar customers.

The deadline to weigh in at FERC is June 15.

Solar United Neighbors, Vote Solar, and Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) are urging those who value solar to let Virginia state officials and FERC know why FERC should not approve the petition.

You can do this in one of two ways:

  1. Access the Vote Solar/Solar United Neighbors (VS/SUN) grassroots advocacy website: If you have solar or a solar business, or if you consider net metering an important way to enable solar growth and reduced reliance on carbon fuels, urge your Governor to direct state agencies to intervene at FERC to protect state’s rights. The site offers draft letters for solar owners and businesses. The letters sent to Governors will be compiled and sent to FERC with a cover letter from VS/SUN addressing states’ rights and energy choice.

Additionally, the Sierra Club is collecting “signatures” here to: “Tell FERC to reject this ill-conceived attempt to take away your state’s right to set net metering policy and give consumers clean energy choices.”

  1. Contact your Governor, State Agencies, and FERC directly to express your views. Below are links for VA officials and for FERC.

Below are some points you may find useful as you develop your message(s).

Time for commenting is short. We urge you to speak up in defense of states’ rights and in favor of net metering compensation.

– Joy Loving for the Climate Action Alliance of the Valley

Contact Virginia Officials urging Virginia to intervene in FERC Docket EL20-42 and to oppose this attack on our state’s ability to set energy policy for its own residents. If our state agencies have already intervened, thank them for taking action.

Contact FERC to ask it to disapprove the petition docketed as EL20-42:
Search FERC’s docket (enter EL20-42 into the search box) to review comments and interventions already filed:

Possible Points you may find useful as you develop your message(s).

Tell your story.

  • Why/when you chose solar.
  • Details of your investment and your actual and expected return.
  • Role/value of net metering in solar decision and effect on your return.
  • Whether/why your solar system is grid-tied or not.
  • Your solar advocacy actions and opportunities.

Reasons for/benefits of going solar.

  • Reduce carbon footprint.
  • Improve personal resilience.
  • Exercise energy freedom of choice.
  • Care for environment.
  • Improve Energy Security.
  • Reduce Electricity costs.
  • Reduce Peak Demand and otherwise contribute to grid reliability and resilience.

Why regulation of net metering compensation should be by states and not federal.

  • One size doesn’t fit all.
  • Circumstances, conditions, and other factors vary greatly by states.
  • Existing approaches represent years of experimentation in 49 states with alternative models and methods, as well as focused oversight by state regulatory and legislative bodies.
  • Net metering is a retail transaction between solar producer and electricity provider, not a wholesale one.
  • Constant and frequent improvements in technology necessitate a nimble response relevant to effects on each state’s economy, market conditions, laws/regulations, and other changing conditions.
  • Value of solar must be determined in each state’s market based on its utility model(s) and existing law/regulation, and a national standard would be inequitable and inaccurate.
  • FERC not in a position to perform that kind of analysis to achieve equity among all states and all stakeholders.

Effects of federal takeover of net metering compensation.

  • There are 2.2 million families and 100,000 businesses who have invested tens of billions of their own dollars in solar energy.
  • Petition is by a group favoring fossil fuels, asking for a federal takeover of citizen solar rights.
  • FERC’s approval would hand over control of local energy policy to the federal government.
  • FERC has supported fossil fuels and their producers during its entire existence and is largely funded by them.
  • Should FERC accede, VA’s newly passed Clean Economy Act and the goals established in Governor Northam’s Executive Order 43 would be seriously jeopardized.
  • The right of energy choice that Virginians have under VA law/regulation would be extinguished.
  • There’s no rational basis for federalizing decisions that should rest with individuals and their states.
  • For almost forty years, states have appropriately had jurisdiction over solar rights. They have approached their stewardship in varying ways, some more successful and equitable than others. The election process and changing circumstances can cause states to revise their approaches. Neither of these remedies would be as easily exercised if FERC decided net metering compensation for every state.
  • The federal government should not impose its will on VA families and businesses that want to take control over their individual and collective energy future.

Circumstances of Petition.

  • It is disturbing and doubtless not accidental that attempts like this–to fast-track this anti-solar and anti-states’ rights petition during a global pandemic–are happening. Rather, the scope and timing are a blatant attempt at major anti renewable energy change to favor the antiquated US electric utility market and the incumbent electricity producers. Particularly now, as homes are increasingly our sanctuaries, local solar has given many greater peace of mind financially, enabling one way to safeguard families against the increasingly unreliable and unpredictable electricity grid.
  • Contrary to the often-expressed utility negative view of solar and net metering, solar owners are not the only ones saving with local solar. Local solar helps everyone save by reducing transmission costs, providing local peak energy resources, bolstering grid resilience, and more.
  • FERC cannot erode state’s right to offer energy choice to families and businesses that choose to invest in solar energy.

You can watch this archived webinar from Solar United Neighbors about how to diffuse the threat from the New England Ratepayers Association (NERA). It was recorded on May 28, 2020.

In May 2020, NERA — a secretive group with ties to monopoly utilities — petitioned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to end net metering and treat solar homeowners as wholesale power generators.

We assembled an expert panel to discuss the implications and what you can do.

* The Energy and Policy Institute will talk about their research on “NERA: the New England Ratepayers Association,” the secretive group that has filed this petition to FERC.

* Vote Solar and Solar United Neighbors will explain the petition, potential implications, and opportunities to join us in fighting this petition with a deadline for actions of June 15th.

Speakers include Glen Brand and Liz Veazey from Solar United Neighbors, Nathan Phelps from Vote Solar, and Dave Anderson with Energy and Policy Institute.

Advanced Energy Economy, “a national association of business leaders who are making the global energy system more secure, clean, and affordable,” recorded this webinar on Net Energy Metering and State Authority: What’s at Stake for Advanced Energy in FERC Petition on June 3, 2020.

Webinar Overview: States have long had the right to design retail billing and rate policies to facilitate the adoption of distributed energy resources, but right now that’s under threat of federal preemption. Net energy metering and similar practices have long been an important tool for states, as well as municipal and cooperative utilities, to empower consumers to take control over their energy supply. A recent petition from a little-known group called the New England Ratepayers Association asks the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to upend the status quo and expand federal regulatory authority over these policies and the customers that participate in them – with ramifications well beyond just net energy metering for rooftop solar. This webinar explained how FERC ruling the wrong way could impact existing and emerging state and municipal and cooperative utility approaches to supporting distributed energy resources in retail markets.

• Ted Thomas, Chairman, Arkansas Public Service Commission
• Hannah Muller, Director of Public Policy, Clearway Energy
• John McCaffrey, Senior Regulatory Counsel, American Public Power Association
• Jeff Dennis, Managing Director and General Counsel, Advanced Energy Economy

From the Southern Environmental Law Center on June 23, 2020:
Southeastern groups join states and regulators in defending solar net metering programs

“Last week, over 50,000 individuals and 600 organizations, states, regulators, and elected officials submitted comments and petitions defending the ability for states to have authority over rooftop solar net metering programs. SELC filed extensive comments on behalf of Southeast public interest organizations, providing a regional perspective and describing how Southeast states and more than 40,000 rooftop solar customers rely on net metering programs each month across the region.” 

CAAV’s Climate Voter Series: City Council Platforms

As part of our continuing Climate Voter promotion series, CAAV presents the following posts about the five candidates for Harrisonburg City Council’s Democratic Caucus closing May 16, 2020. Each post provides a short description of each candidate followed by their responses to a brief questionnaire CAAV prepared to better understand their positions on local climate change-related issues.

Please note, this series is intended to inform Harrisonburg residents about the platforms of all candidates and is not intended to be an endorsement of any particular candidate.

Click on a candidate’s name below to find their answers to the CAAV questions:

Richard Baugh

Luciano Benjamin

Laura Dent

Charles Hendricks

Deanna Reed

Update after the Democratic Caucus: Deanna Reed, Charles Hendricks, and Laura Dent will be on the November 3, 2020, ballot for Harrisonburg City Council.

As of the filing deadline, two non-Democratic candidates have announced their intention to run for Harrisonburg City Council. CAAV has asked them likewise to respond to its questionnaire.



George Hirschmann

Kathleen Kelley


The Citizen and the James Madison Center for Civic Engagement hosted a Virtual Town Hall with the 2020 Harrisonburg City Council Candidates on April 28. Find the YouTube video here.

Richard Baugh


Richard Baugh (D) is an attorney and current member of the Harrisonburg Bar Association who is running for Harrisonburg City Council. He is running for re-election, and is currently the longest serving Council member. According to the Baugh for Council Facebook Page, his campaign centers around Planned Development, Quality of Life, and Community-First. Richard is a founding member of the Harrisonburg Environmental Performance Standards Advisory Committee (EPSAC) which prompted the city to develop and adopt the Harrisonburg Environmental Action Plan in 2019. He is supportive of the Harrisonburg 50 by 25 Campaign and has asked City staff to review its implementation.

See his responses to CAAV’s Questionnaire below:

1. Do you support the 50×25 campaign?


2. How would you implement the 3 goals of the 50×25 campaign?

As requested from ongoing discussions with a number of constituents, I have asked City Staff to review the goals and let me know if they see any complications to Council endorsing the campaign. This review was already secondary to the annual budget process, and is now also behind addressing Covid-19 related issues. However, I discussed this with the City Attorney earlier this week, and we are hopeful we can keep this review moving and completed by the end of May. My intention is to bring this before Council once the review is complete.

As far as implementation, regarding Goal 1 I know there has been a great deal of review of the existing supply contract between HEC and Dominion Power. I am aware of an argument that HEC, especially if directed by Council, can take some unilateral action to force things in the desired direction. While I have a law degree and am not entirely unfamiliar with this area of the law, I also know from experience that people who have reached their own conclusion on this may not just take my word for it that things are unlikely to be that simple. My view is that what people are reviewing includes longstanding boilerplate language in lengthy agreements that were written with different circumstances and goals in mind than what we are looking at in the current world. In short, the more confidence anyone proclaims as to predictions on the legal issues, regardless of what those predictions are, the less confidence I have in the predictions. That is not to say I do not support pursuing the goal, because I do. In fact, it is another area where I have initiated current review by City Staff.

Goal 2 is more in the bailiwick of our Public Works Department. However, this may be less about near term staff review and more about how it fits in with processes already in place. On January 14 of this year, the City adopted an Environmental Action Plan. I won’t begin to repeat all of the relevant parts here. For anyone not already familiar with it, it’s available online and should make interesting reading for those who care about in these issues, especially if they are not already familiar with it. Since further comment on Goal 2 dovetails with the part of my response to Question 3 regarding implementation issues, I won’t repeat that here.

Goal 3 is likely to require efforts by both Public Works and HEC. Again, this is addressed generally in Phase 1 of the Environmental Action Plan and will be addressed in the Phase 2 process I outline in response to the next question. I will say that my sense is if there is an area where there may be low hanging fruit, it is this one. Details on specific recommendations are still to be determined, but this is an area it looks like our community has largely ignored. While this could definitely run into Covid-19 generated fiscal challenges, there is also the potential of low or no cost strategies to communicate and support assistance to City residents.

This may be the time to clarify that in a Covid-19 world any actions of any kind requiring new money are going to be a major challenge. The circumstances that will make this not be true are a quicker than expected economic recovery, or relevant federal relief. Anyone who disputes this is either ignoring the facts or has information I deeply hope they will share with me.

3. What would you do to increase or facilitate the adoption of renewable energies or solar in City and School buildings?

I refer again to the Plan adopted by Council on January 14 of this year, the formal name of which is Phase I of the Environmental Action Plan. Focus Area 1 of the Plan is “Buildings and Energy.” Goals 3 and 4 of the Plan speak directly to this question. These issues have already been identified as priorities for the City and have been affirmed through a thorough process that reflects approval and buy in by EPSAC (the City’s Environmental Performance Standards Advisory Committee), Staff and Council.

So, if there is a Phase 1, is there a Phase 2? Absolutely. Phase 2 will focus on
implementation, both as to strategies and developing specific policies. Absent a pandemic, more forward movement on Phase 2 would have already occurred. I will say this. My personal view is that this is less about what flashy concept I (or any other candidate) can articulate in this moment, and more about recognizing we have a process in place that is utilizing some of the best minds in the City on these subjects to make reality out of things Council has already endorsed. This most definitely includes “facilitating the adoption of renewable energies or solar in City and School buildings.”

4. How would you prioritize city and state resources for addressing environmental justice concerns, specifically energy efficiency for low income housing?

Let me first say that everything I say below is based on the assumption that funding would be from local dollars. If we’re talking about grant funding, that’s a different world. Our Staff is constantly on the lookout for opportunities in this area. Moreover, in the event there eventually is any federal Covid-19 relief, based on past examples it would not be surprising if it came in the form of grant opportunities, rather than general aid. In short, for these types of opportunities where grant funding becomes available, assume the City will pursue them.

Otherwise, if I understand the question correctly, it illustrates a tension I see that people are often unaware of in posing fiscal questions. My assumption is that this is driven by folks analogizing to things they know, which in this case is how they approach their own budgets, and what they know of how the Feds do it.

I have come to the view that what is most important about understanding local government finance is the ways that it is NOT like our personal or the federal budget. Framing the question as being about priorities is a federal mindset. That’s what they do. They fund large categories, often very generally. So, knowing how much is spent on education, versus defense, versus social programs, etc., and observing changes over time, can be very informative.

Local government finance is not like this at all. The vast majority of what we fund are core services that we don’t have the option of not providing, from education to infrastructure to mandated social services. Moreover, something people often miss by comparing us to their personal budgets, is that we aren’t just required to provide these services. We are usually mandated heavily as to how we provide them, which can drastically limit things like flexibility and efforts to economize.

As a result, our budget focus is not on weighing priorities among large general categories. Ours is on identifying the anticipated cost of providing specific services we are required to or otherwise intend to provide, and then finding the money to make this happen. As a result, we often get interesting inquiries from constituents about our priorities, when all they have done is look at the budget and say, “You increased spending for ______________, and decreased it for ______________, and I don’t like that.” Another favorite is, “Why does your budget only spend __% on ______________, while [someplace else] spends more?” In fact, the words are usually stronger than, “I don’t like that.” Things like basic intelligence and integrity are sometimes called into question.

A good example came up in one of the Great Recession years. I spoke with an irate
constituent, who could not believe that we had significantly increased the Parks and Rec budget, while decreasing it for the Fire Department. He felt a little better when I was able to communicate that the Parks and Rec increase was largely due to it being the first full year operations at the Simms Rec Center were included, and that the Fire Department decrease was simply due to senior staff retiring and being replaced by people who were paid less.

So, where would promoting energy efficiency for low income housing fit into traditional notions of core services? It’s not really obvious where it does, but probably somewhere in Public Works as a best guess. Again, the feds fund large categories of things to do what it perceives to be good stuff. Same with the state. Local government, not so much. That does not mean we would ignore this issue. We like doing good stuff. We are not, however, traditionally structured to be deep pockets for things that get much beyond core services.

And to stay on my soapbox a bit longer, I perceive increasing public interest, if not
demands, for non-core services from local government, and see this as a reflection of decades of leadership dysfunction, if not outright abdication, at the federal and state level. There are definitely good things that come from people being engaged at the local level, be it in issues such as the ones raised here or otherwise. However, I find myself thinking more and more that if I was observing from Mars, I would wonder why you have all these localities scrambling to address these issues on their own. Their resources are limited, and their scope does not move beyond borders that are close by. Moreover, it seems like what they’re good at, in fact what they’re designed to do, is more like implementation of policy set at higher levels. So, we end up with activism at the local level being a major driver for policy, when what comes from the higher levels is nothing or things that make the situation worse. Which we will support and continue to do, especially when leadership and direction from above is lacking. But it really is a less than optimal way of addressing these issues.

Heck, might as well keep the rant going. I am on a body called the LGAC, which is the
Local Government Advisory Committee to the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council. This committee is exactly what it sounds like. It is made up of local government officials from the 7 jurisdictions that make up the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Its function is to advise the Executive Council (the 6 Governors and Mayor of the 7 member jurisdictions) on Bay policy with an emphasis on the impact on local governments. Among its activities, it produces annual recommendations to the Executive Council. So, what is a major running theme of that group? Someone noticed that going back 20 years something that was on the list most every year, usually as the first item, was about the failure to appreciate just how hard it is on local governments to be given increased mandates to do more stuff (often really good stuff), when it never seems to come with any funding.

I bring this up simply to point out that local governments catch it from the top down and the bottom up, in the sense that it is convenient for people to believe we can always handle one more thing. Especially if it does good and doesn’t cost THAT much money. I do see the bottom up pressure as less of an issue, since that is at least coming from the people who will be paying for the increased expense. I also believe many if not most in our community are generally willing to take on some additional financial burden to promote things they support, such as environmental justice concerns. However, over the near term anything that requires new revenue is going to be on hold. Even in the rosy scenario, we will be spending the next few months coming to grips with how to keep our books balanced (which we are required by law to do) and core services functioning in light of major reductions in revenue.

On the specific question, in short there are 2 ways to do it. Top down would be that Council votes to do something along these lines. Of course, that runs into the challenge, especially now, that you would need to directly articulate how you find the funds to do it. Bottom up would be that a City Department finds a way to get funding for something like this into what becomes an approved budget.

5. What do you think about recycling?

How much time do you have?

First, I have nothing but good things to say about how Staff has stepped up to deal with our solid waste issues. I assume most everyone reading this knows the recent history. For a number of years, Harrisonburg was able to utilize a single stream system. One effect of this was to replace a long standing voluntary curbside recycling program.

Of course, what was a limited market for many recyclable plastics became literally no
market. With no advance notice, we were told by the company that was taking our solid waste that they simply were not going to service us anymore. We literally had to redesign our solid waste management on the fly. I can say with confidence that if there was one aspect of this where Council spoke clearly to Staff, it was that however we moved forward, we wanted the recycling issue to remain at the forefront.

That has led to our recycling program in its current form. Is it everything we desire? No. Does it reflect prioritized attention and constant openness and flexibility regarding program improvements? It does.

An interesting aside is that recent data shows we have reached the point where our
recycling levels now exceed what we had during the old voluntary curbside program. This reflects very well on our community. It also probably reflects some changes in the community. But it brings to mind some interesting push back I received when we stopped curbside recycling. I cannot attribute this to anything other than the virtuousness felt by many of us who did curbside recycling. I literally had people come to me asking us to reinstate it, and insisting that everything was going into a landfill or was otherwise not as advertised with the single stream program. The fact is, when that program was functioning, it was functioning very well. Our recycling numbers were well ahead of anything we ever achieved with the curbside program, or where we are now.

Which brings me to my soapbox moment for this question. This is a pretty serious issue, particularly as it pertains to plastics. We clipped along for years, especially when we put things in a recycling bin, confidant that the plastic fairies were taking it all away to a good place where it got “recycled.” How exactly did it get recycled? For most of us, the answer was, “I don’t know, it just gets recycled.”

What a lot of it actually did was end up in China, because that was the market where
someone was willing to pay at least a few pennies for it. There aren’t many of us who would have thought it was OK for it to end up in a Chinese landfill, the Pacific Ocean, or maybe being burned over there where any near-term effects of the fumes would be their problem.

So, when the scab got ripped off of this, many of us discovered that our assumptions about what happened to recycled plastics were wrong and had been wrong for years. Why? Because mythology notwithstanding, under the current market structure it is still incredibly cheap to produce the next plastic package. By comparison, it is expensive (absent some still small-scale creative uses that have been devised in some areas) to repurpose an existing piece of plastic, if it is even possible to find any use for it.

To me the depth of this challenge is illustrated by something a lot of us know, the Green New Deal. What is the standard critique of the Green New Deal? OK, it’s not like I agree with it, but you hear things like too aspirational, not practical, and definitely that it’s too expensive to implement. My point is this. In what’s held up as a significant progressive statement on where we need to go, what does it say about plastics and other solid waste management challenges? Other than what you might infer generally, nothing.

Which is interesting, because it may not be rocket science. What would you do from a policy standpoint if you have too much of something undesirable being produced (driven by low costs of production), and too little of countervailing efforts? Wouldn’t you tax the one (and couldn’t you do worse than just point out that this production is imposing costs on the larger society where it needs to stop getting a free ride), subsidize the other, or maybe do both?

Anyway, I find it interesting that the only place I’ve found where this even gets discussed a little bit is with the LGAC group. Local governments down in the trenches know this is an issue, even if others continue to ignore it. Of course, local governments in Virginia do not have the authority to tax manufacturers or the resources to give significant subsidies to alternatives.

In the meantime, we will continue our commitment to doing what we can, and trying to improve whenever we can, in the current environment.

6. Is there anything Harrisonburg can do to reduce transportation emissions, the largest
sector of climate change emissions in Virginia and the United States?

I again refer to our Environmental Action Plan. Focus Area 4, Sustainable Transportation, speaks to this in some detail. And to recap, the adoption of Phase 1 of the Plan affirms the City’s commitment to this goal. Phase 2 will be the deep dive into specific actions and strategies to implement the Phase 1 goals and values. So, I will again suggest that what is more important to the City is supporting a process that many have worked hard to put into place, than to focus on anything flashy or passionate that I (or any other candidate) might articulate in the moment.

I will conclude with a final point that flows from this but has not been mentioned. The
City’s current draft budget for 2020-2021 is essentially the 2019-2020 budget, with a short list of changes we know will happen or that reflect particular priorities, and subject to what will almost certainly be significant Covid-19 driven revisions as our actual revenue shortfalls becomes clearer.

I bring this up because the very short list of additions includes funding for a greenhouse
gas assessment recommended by the Environmental Action Plan. One of the things we keep running into in reviewing the best thinking in these areas is that while it’s great to promote this or that innovative idea, if you haven’t taken inventory of your community, you are in some sense flying blind. Sure, most anything you promote that looks like it will do some good will probably do some good. But if we want to be effective, which seems especially important if we are going to be challenged to come up with new money in the next or even next few budget cycles, we can use all the insight we can get into what we are actually accomplishing.

While I very much hope funding for the study will survive the budget challenges of the
coming year, it’s worth noting that things which have been identified as priorities tend to stay that way. So, even if timing turns out to be an issue, the fact is Council is poised to affirm that getting this study done is a priority over numerous other things the City could be doing.

A pdf version of Richard Baugh’s answers to the CAAV questions can be found here. 

Laura Dent


Laura Dent (D) is a technical writer, adjunct professor, and free-lance entrepreneur who is running for Harrisonburg City Council. According to the Laura for City Council website, her campaign centers around Health, the Economy, and the Environment. If elected, Laura wants to improve the city’s commitment to renewable energy, conservation, and earth-friendly waste management practices. She supports the Harrisonburg 50 by 25 campaign and is on the record from the Harrisonburg Citizen about supporting steps toward Harrisonburg adopting 30% renewable energy by 2023.

See her responses to CAAV’s Questionnaire below:

1) Do you support the 50×25 campaign?

Yes, definitely. After our personal health, climate change is the most crucial issue for government representatives to address.

2) How would implement the 3 goals of 50×25 campaign?

If I’m elected to City Council, I would propose a mandate to require HEC to provide 30% renewable energy by 2022, to keep pace with Gov. Northam’s Executive Order 43 for state institutions.

Once that agreement is in place, City Council would increase the percentage incrementally to reach 50% by 2025, and beyond.

3) What would you do to increase or facilitate the adoption of renewable energies or solar in City and School buildings?

Since the construction of the High School has been postponed, now is the time to address renewable energy. I would propose actions to include solar panels and possibly onsite wind turbines (if an assessment proves them feasible) as part of the project.

I would propose mandates for all new City buildings to include renewable energy – solar panels, or wind turbines if site-appropriate.

4) How would you prioritize city and state resources for addressing environmental justice concerns, specifically energy efficiency for low income housing?

In a time of scarce resources after the Covid-19 shutdown, priorities for energy efficiency for low-income housing would need to be weighed in comparison to other projects. Given current funding constraints, I would seek federal and state sources to supplement City resources, as well as explore options for trust funds or other incremental city funding, as well as on-bill recovery programs for low-income families.

5) What do you think about recycling?

I think recycling is great! It’s unfortunate that 1) our curbside recycling was stopped, and 2) the single-stream process failed spectacularly, when a) the promised technology never was implemented and b) the global market for recyclables collapsed.
The City responded well enough for the time being with the drop-off recycling at the landfill – but even that has had to be curtailed, with the mobile recycling unit filling in for now.

Given all these constraints, I think we need to investigate more comprehensive locally-based initiatives.
1. Reduce! Encourage reducing plastic waste, such as imposing fees for plastic bags. Unfortunately we can’t ban single-used plastics because of the Dillon Rule (that should be repealed; if it is, we have more freedom – then we could ban plastic straws!).
2. Reuse – the landfill swap program for reusable items is helpful, when it’s available. Encourage reusable bags and containers; difficult now with the coronavirus precautions
3. Recycle – with the global markets for recyclables unavailable, consider local projects such as remanufacturing recyclable goods into usable products. Some examples have included: park benches, decking boards … Local entrepreneurs could be funded to explore feasible technologies and markets.
In short, there’s more that we can do locally, given the constraints globally.

6) Is there anything Harrisonburg can do to reduce transportation emissions, the largest sector of climate change emissions in VA and the United States?

Certainly. We can require that all new city transportation be electric or at least hybrid vehicles. We can expand transportation routes to better meet the needs of working people (currently geared toward students).

We have learned through the coronavirus shutdown that many of us can work from home. We should encourage companies and institutions to continue to allow teleworking to lesson commuting traffic.


I would be happy to work with EPSAC, CAAV, and other local experts in climate change technology and activism to identify further opportunities to address the needs of our future on the planet.

Thank you very much for the opportunity, and for your ongoing actions.

Laura Dent
Candidate for City Council

A pdf version of Laura Dent’s answers to the CAAV questions is here.