At Dominion wind hearings, continued disputes over ratepayer protections – Virginia Mercury

After two and a half days of testimony in Richmond, shopper safety advocates proceed to disagree with Dominion Power over whether or not regulators ought to require additional safeguards for ratepayers because the utility seeks approval for its plans to construct an enormous wind farm off the coast of Virginia Seashore. 

“There isn’t a clean verify for this challenge,” mentioned Joseph Reid, an legal professional from McGuireWoods who represented Dominion within the case earlier than the State Company Fee, on Tuesday. 

However Senior Assistant Legal professional Basic Meade Browder informed the SCC that the workplace’s Division of Client Counsel stays involved that prospects face vital dangers from the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind challenge. 

“Our place is that approval ought to include significant protections that mitigate the chance to ratepayers, who’re presently set as much as bear the monetary threat if the CVOW challenge proves to be extra expensive to assemble and function than is projected or if the efficiency of the challenge doesn’t meet the extent projected by the corporate,” he mentioned. 

If constructed, CVOW would be the largest wind farm in the USA, producing 2.6 gigawatts of energy — greater than what’s generated by the state’s nuclear items and its largest gasoline plant mixed — from 176 generators sunk into the Atlantic Ocean 27 miles off Virginia Seashore. 

The challenge is each a key element of Dominion’s plans to decarbonize its fleet by midcentury in keeping with the Virginia Clear Economic system Act and, with an estimated price ticket of $9.65 billion, the costliest endeavor the utility has undertaken thus far. If accredited by regulators, the typical residential buyer, outlined as somebody who makes use of 1,000 kilowatts of energy each month, would see their month-to-month invoice initially rise by $1.45. SCC employees have estimated that determine might rise to $14.21 by the point the challenge enters operation in 2027. 

What’s ‘cheap and prudent’ in terms of Dominion offshore wind challenge’s prices?

All through this week’s hearings, Dominion argued {that a} negotiated settlement generally known as a stipulation between the utility, SCC employees, the Sierra Membership and the Nansemond Indian Tribe gives adequate protections for ratepayers. 

Underneath that settlement, which is topic to regulatory approval, the challenge’s present price ticket of $9.65 billion can be discovered to be “cheap and prudent.” If prices exceeded that threshold, Dominion must return to the fee for its approval to recuperate the surplus. 

Dominion would additionally conform to report any value overruns or timeline delays inside 30 days of turning into conscious of them and to offer explanations for any shortfalls within the challenge’s anticipated efficiency. 

However the Workplace of the Legal professional Basic, Walmart, environmental and financial improvement nonprofit Appalachian Voices and advocacy group Clear Virginia contended that extra concrete commitments are wanted to make sure ratepayers are protected if plans go awry. 

“We might love for every little thing that the corporate guarantees and that’s being adopted within the stipulation to in truth happen. What we wish is for there to be extra protections put in place if materials modifications occur in the middle of building,” mentioned Carrie Grundmann, an legal professional for Walmart. 

Most debated throughout this week’s hearings have been proposals for a efficiency assure and for particular timelines Dominion must observe in looking for regulatory approval for potential value overruns. 

Underneath a efficiency assure, Dominion can be required to show that the wind farm was working at a sure degree, calculated utilizing a three-year rolling common. If efficiency fell beneath that threshold, firm shareholders must bear the prices of changing shortfalls within the facility’s vitality manufacturing. 

Different proposals referred to as for the imposition of a value cap on the challenge, much like one instituted by the SCC in its approval for the Virginia Metropolis Hybrid Power Middle in Clever County in 2008. Clear Virginia requested the SCC to require the usage of an unbiased monitor. 

Power guide Scott Norwood, testifying for the Workplace of the Legal professional Basic, mentioned Wednesday that provisions like efficiency ensures and value caps have been used to guard prospects from the price of wind initiatives in states like Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas and Oklahoma. 

“These provisions have additionally been acknowledged by the utility house owners of the initiatives,” he mentioned. “They’re not so uncommon or unusual that it needs to be ordered by the fee. The businesses have are available proposing protections.” 

Dominion officers insisted the stipulation gives sufficient assurance to prospects, and that within the case of a delay or overrun, the utility would carry particulars of the brand new circumstances to the SCC for its evaluation. An “arbitrary” efficiency assure, Dominion Senior Vice President of Mission Building Mark Mitchell mentioned Wednesday, “might put the corporate in danger.” 

The stipulation has been “fastidiously crafted to protect the fee’s discretion to cope with this in a way because it sees match,” legal professional Reid mentioned Wednesday. 

Firm officers and legal professionals additionally repeatedly expressed confidence all through the hearings that value overruns and delays have been unlikely. Mitchell described “thorough” and “conservative” approaches to building planning and the incorporation of contingencies into the challenge schedule. 

Vishwa Hyperlink, one other McGuireWoods legal professional representing Dominion, emphasised that “since 2007, the corporate has been efficiently contracting, proposing, setting up and working many massive, new never-before-done-by-the-company technology initiatives.” 

However Grundmann and others questioned the utility’s resistance to proposals for additional guardrails.

“In case your degree of confidence as to your budgeting, estimating and timeline is so excessive, why have such opposition to extra buyer protections?” she requested. 

Mitchell replied: “I believe we’ve satisfactory buyer protections within the stipulation.” 

As proceedings concluded noon Thursday, SCC Choose Judith Jagdmann requested all events to file closing briefs by June 17. Among the many questions she requested them to contemplate have been what limits may exist on the fee’s authorized authority to undertake shopper protections similar to value caps and efficiency ensures within the case.