Business Needs Certainty. So Do Voters

Posted on April 17, 2025 by Christian Braunlich
Share this article on:

Asked nearly 40 years ago what he needed most, less regulation or lower taxes, a small manufacturer of machine tools replied: “We need both,” he said, “but the thing we need most is certainty.”

“Businesses have to plan out months and years,” he said. “We have to plan for employee salaries, tax rates, benefit costs, energy prices, selling cost, and the value of the dollar if we export or import. There’s a huge risk of failure trying to know what all that will be two years or even two months down the road, and if we’re wrong our businesses and our employees get hurt. The worst thing for a business is uncertainty.”

Nothing about that has changed.

Economists are free to argue about the viability of tariffs, although most conservative and even liberal economists tend to line up with the legendary Thomas Sowell over Paul Navarro.

But one thing about which there should be no argument: Imposing massive tariffs with a heretofore unknown formula that is defective, even on countries with which the U.S. has a trade surplus, on products we cannot make (think: coffee, chocolate and bananas), and on islands populated only by penguins does not inspire confidence in the process.

Nor does watching the bottom drop out of the stock and bond markets, and its effect on the 61 percent of American adults holding stocks in personal or retirement accounts.

It might be comforting if these actions were explained coherently.  But they aren’t: Those advising the president seem to have tested a variety of themes to justify them, almost as if the evidence was gathered after the decision had been made. Only after a week had passed did the White House even unite on the message that it all was all just a masterclass in trade negotiation.

So, putting a “pause” on most tariffs (but keeping them on neighbors Mexico and Canada) while making clear the goal is not abandoned and we have to do it again in 90 days creates chaos for American businesses who hire Americans to make or supply products to Americans.

Which is why your retirement account remains volatile.

It is no different for Virginia business owners. A story in the Richmond Times-Union by Michael Martz (count us biased in favor of reporters who put our appointments on the front page) noted the inability of businesses to plan: “The volatility is beyond insane, “ said Kent Engelke, chief economic strategist and managing director at Capitol Securities Management in Richmond. “You can’t make decisions. The only thing that is certain is uncertainty. Everything else is conjecture and rhetoric.”

Nancy Thomas, president and CEO of Virginia’s association of retail businesses, InUnison, agreed that the temporary 10 percent tariff floor is destabilizing: “The key word is ‘floor.’ It could go up. It probably won’t go down. All they can anticipate is that these large tariffs are not going to go away.”

Among those destabilized are the 120 retailers at Northern Virginia’s Eden Center, which hosted President Trump for an event during his campaign.

“Financially, this tariff could devastate small family-run businesses that have served as anchors of our community for generations,” said Jess Nguyen. “Many of these business owners operate on razor-thin margins, considering the current economic landscape of the Eden Center.”

A trade war would be bad news for those who make American products as well. Bill Butcher, founder of Port City Brewing Company in Alexandria notes that his craft brewery depends on high-quality, climate-dependent pilsner malt from Canada. A 25 percent tariff, he says, means “we’re going to have to raise our prices. This $12.99 six-pack of beer is going to end up at $18.99.”

As Thomas Jefferson Institute president Derrick Max has noted, “… international trade plays a vital role in Virginia’s economy, driving growth, supporting jobs, and enhancing competitiveness. According to the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, in 2023, Virginia exported $22.4 billion worth of goods, with key markets including Canada, China, and India. The agricultural sector alone contributed $1.5 billion in exports, underscoring its importance to the state. Additionally, over 7,000 Virginia-based companies are engaged in exporting, 85% of which are small- and medium-sized enterprises. A trade war puts these jobs and these businesses at significant risk.”

Nor is this exclusively a Northern Virginia problem. The effect on the Commonwealth’s rural communities would be stunning.

Over at The Cardinal News, which specializes in reportage of red-state, rural areas, editor Dwayne Yancey did a deep dive into the impact of a trade war with Canada, concluding “the parts of Virginia at most risk in a trade war with Canada are west of the Blue Ridge, specifically the 6th and 9th Congressional Districts the two most Republican districts in the state…. Between them, those two districts have nearly 10,000 jobs and nearly $1.8 billion of goods tied to exports to Canada … If you factor in services that companies in those districts are selling north of the border, then the trade value rises to $2.69 billion.”

And it’s not just Canada and not just agriculture. Over the past decade, the auto industry has created 8,000 jobs in places like Pulaski and Roanoke Counties, in cities like Salem and Danville.

All of this has electoral consequences, right down to the proverbial dog catcher.

The reality of tariffs on jobs and inflation is altering the perceptions of those who voted in 2024 and will vote again this year. With 98 percent of Americans in the April 13-15 YouGov Poll citing inflation as “very or somewhat important” and their most important concern, 48 percent (53 percent of moderates) believe tariffs are harmful to the economy with no real long-term benefits. Another 38 percent believe tariffs will cause short-term economic pain. Little wonder, then, that voters disapprove of how the President is handling the issue of inflation by a margin of 55-37.

That’s a national survey – considering that Kamala Harris won the state by a nearly six-point margin, the numbers are likely grimmer in Virginia … putting Republican candidates this year in a very dangerous zone.

And if one overlays maps of where older Virginians live and where Trump voters live, and there is massive overlap. If, 90 days from now, the markets respond to a renewal of tariffs in the same way they did this month, that hissing sound you hear is the sound of retirement savings and Republican votes escaping into the atmosphere.

Although the President is not on the ballot, his popularity ratings will surely have an impact on turnout and voting patterns in state elections this November. The Left has not waited to roll out attack ads for 12 House of Delegate seats, including eight held by Republicans but in districts lost in the presidential election last year.

It’s a political axiom that voters tend to vote against more than they vote for. With memories of her role in the Clinton Administration, they voted against Hillary. After four years, tired of the drama, they voted against Donald Trump. Four years later, astonished about the condition of Joe Biden and White House claims that he was healthy as a racehorse, they flushed that administration down the drain, too.

Democrats have their own problems, of course. Rank and file Democrat activists want a party that’s even more progressive than the one they have now, despite the fact that in the voting booth voters have rejected progressivism.

But voters also take their cues from the federal administration, and that means results from 2017-2021 suggest that if the issue becomes personalities in Washington, progressives might win:  Virginia kicked off that period with a 2017 election resulting in the election of Ralph Northam and a Republican loss of 15 seats in the House of Delegates. Nationally, that trend continued.

As happens every four years, Virginia is the first test of the new Presidency and a referendum on its policies, popularity and electoral prowess.  The task for Virginia’s Republican candidates is to prove not only the devastating consequences of the Left’s economic, social, and safety policies but also to re-assure voters of their competence and ability to direct the state with discipline towards policies and programs that make Virginians lives better.

Chris Braunlich is senior advisor and former president of the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy. He’s run four times for public office, winning twice, and may be reached at [email protected].

Posted in Business, Taxes | Comments Off on Business Needs Certainty. So Do Voters

Giving Thanks for What Makes America Great

Posted on November 29, 2024 by Christian Braunlich
Share this article on:

Alexis de Tocqueville never met Nancy Slater White, but he would have liked her.

Tocqueville, of course, is the observational author whose 1835 book, Democracy in America, is considered by many to be a seminal work in defining what made America and the American character unique among nations.  White was a Bethlehem, Pennsylvania businesswoman and community leader whose death in Northern Virginia, at the age of 91, left her with few contemporaries but plenty of devoted friends and family to mourn her passing.

At a time in which defining what makes America great too often boils down to an election return, they offer a lesson on why we should be thankful this weekend.

Raised in a time when opportunities were limited for women, Nancy White attended college on a scholarship, becoming a social worker and doing whatever was necessary to protect abused children – at one point tracking down a judge on the third tee of a golf course to get a court order signed before it was too late to help a particular child.

But it was in voluntary community efforts that she shone.  Fifty years ago, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania was largely a “company town.”  While Bethlehem Steel continued to thrive, by the 1970s it would soon face the stresses resulting from growing competition – foreign imports and non-union mini-mills producing steel less expensively.

That was in the future, however, and steel executives continued to throw their weight around, diminishing the influence of local businesses and residents in shaping their own community and future.  So White jumped in, helping create a merchants’ association to gather collective strength and fend off the ideas of professional planners who proposed things like banning on-street parking in the business district – a concept that surely would have eviscerated local shopkeepers.

With her husband, White used “sweat equity” to build two restaurants and a toy store in the city, developing a reputation that came in handy when she successfully managed the mayoral campaign of her friend, Frances Morrison – roles that women did not hold in those days.  It mattered little that White was a Republican and Morrison a Democrat.  There was a common goal to be achieved, good ideas to execute, and local problems to be solved:  Let’s get on with it, politics be damned.

The concept of voluntary association to accomplish goals was familiar to Tocqueville.   “In the United States,” Tocqueville wrote, “there is nothing the human will despairs of attaining through the free action of the combined power of individuals.”

“If a stoppage occurs in a thoroughfare and the circulation of vehicles is hindered, the neighbors immediately form themselves into a deliberative body; and this extemporaneous assembly gives rise to an executive power which remedies the inconvenience before anybody has thought of recurring to a pre-existing authority superior to that of the persons immediately concerned.”

As for investing our hopes in centralized government, Tocqueville dismissed the notion.  Centralized government, he noted “excels in preventing, not doing.”

We were a new nation, and one that could grow without hindrance from old world aristocracies and monarchies.  “Among a democratic people, where there is no hereditary wealth, every man works to earn a living,” he wrote. “Labor is held in honor; the prejudice is not against but in its favor.”  In the old world, the poor had no hope of escaping their class; the rich took guaranteed wealth for granted. In the new world, they saw opportunity; they hustled.

This was unique to America.  Voluntary associations – citizens organized for mutual purpose — balanced out what Tocqueville viewed as the potential dangers of an unfettered “every man for himself” democracy.  In the political world, the thriving existence of voluntary associations empowers a minority, protecting against a “tyranny of the majority” that could abuse its power and oppress unpopular minorities and marginalized individuals.

This was happening nowhere else in the world.   But success, Tocqueville cautioned, depended heavily on civic engagement by citizens within their communities.  Unengaged and isolated individuals would prove unhappy and poor citizens of a representative democracy.  To achieve common goals would require connection and collaboration and, yes, even compromise.

Tocqueville theorized.  White – and millions of Americans then and since – put theory into practice.

“Yes, but its different now.  National elections now create hard passions,” you say.  And yet:  “Long before the date arrives, the election becomes everyone’s major, not to say sole, preoccupation. The ardor of the various factions intensifies, and whatever artificial passions the imagination can create in a happy and tranquil country make their presence felt. . . . As the election draws near, intrigues intensify, and agitation increases and spreads. The citizens divide into several camps, each behind its candidate. A fever grips the entire nation. The election becomes the daily grist of the public papers, the subject of private conversations, the aim of all activity.”  So noted Alexis de Tocqueville 189 years ago.

But end they did:  “This ardor dissipates, calm is restored, and the river, having briefly overflowed its banks, returns peacefully to its bed.”  The people returned to their work, their families, and engaging in their communities.

What is different now is a laziness our forebears could not afford.  Engagement, real engagement, is difficult.   It takes time.  It takes commitment.  It’s easier to “post.”  It’s harder to “solve.”  It’s easier to claim allegiance to a social media “community” where everyone agrees; harder to face a live person across a table.

Which may well be the real danger to the experiment begun some 248 years ago.

So … a moment this weekend to give thanks to those who brought us where we are.  And a moment to say a prayer that we are up to the challenge to help it prosper and in so doing prosper ourselves.

Despite our imperfections, that nation Tocqueville wrote of, and that Nancy White added her own sweat equity to, offers the greatest opportunity and the greatest freedom to seek that opportunity of all nations on earth.

Out of all the places we could have ended up, we ended up here.  That, alone, is worth giving thanks for.

Posted in Government Reform | Comments Off on Giving Thanks for What Makes America Great

Governor Youngkin’s Reaganesque Approach to Regulatory Reform Should be a Model for Other States

Posted on November 21, 2024 by Derrick A. Max
Share this article on:

Regulations, while usually well-intentioned, are often a drag on economic growth. They increase costs for businesses, stifle innovation, and can create barriers to entry for new entrepreneurs.

With a runaway administrative state, simple laws passed by Congress or a state’s legislature can become complex and burdensome rules that require hordes of lawyers or already overburdened judges to interpret and measure compliance. This is what led to one of the most consequential Supreme Court decisions in recent memory: the rejection of the Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce. These cases end the long-standing practice of courts deferring to regulatory agencies when the implementing laws are unclear or ambiguous.

This is why regulatory reform is more critical than ever. Rules must now be streamlined and clear and follow legislative language. Not only is this good governance, but it is also crucial for a healthy economy. Reducing regulations, eliminating redundancies, and lowering regulatory burdens will unleash the economy — leading to job creation, increased investment, and greater prosperity.

This was well understood by President Reagan who recognized the stifling effect of excessive regulation and led to his establishment of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in 1980. Reagan appointed an all star cast of founding administrators like James C. Miller III, Christopher C. DeMuth, and Douglas Ginsburg, who led OIRA in a key role reviewing and analyzing proposed regulations, ensuring they were cost-effective and aligned with the administration’s goals. They also led the charge in eliminating unnecessary or poorly crafted regulations.

This focus on regulatory efficiency helped pave the way for the economic expansion of the 1980s.

The Commonwealth of Virginia has established its own version of Reagan’s OIRA — similarly named the Office of Regulatory Management (ORM). Its leader, Reeve T. Bull, recently wrote about his office’s successes in the Regulatory Review, a publication of the Penn Program on Regulation. The article provides a great overview of the “Virginia Model” for regulatory modernization, as spearheaded by Governor Glenn Youngkin.

By establishing the Office of Regulatory Management, Virginia made a commitment to cut red tape and enhance both transparency and efficiency in regulations and permitting processes. The ambitious goal? A 25 percent reduction in regulatory requirements and a significant decrease in permit processing times. After just two years, the results are impressive.

This article effectively outlines the Virginia Model and its benefits, showcasing concrete examples of how this approach has yielded positive results. For instance, the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (VDHCD) successfully trimmed over $24,000 from the cost of building a new home by eliminating unnecessary and costly requirements from its 2021 building code. Similarly, the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation (DPOR) streamlined the licensing process for various professions, leading to an estimated $274 million per year increase in professionals’ earning potential.

The Virginia Model has also made significant strides in improving environmental regulations. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) simplified the stormwater permitting process and introduced new compliance pathways, resulting in an estimated $124 million in annual savings for Virginia businesses. Furthermore, the Marine Resources Commission implemented a more efficient “general permit” for work in subaqueous beds, saving businesses an estimated $47 million per year.

The ORM estimates that it will save Virginians at least $2.4 billion over two years. More specifically, it estimates that their work represents about $380 in the bank account of each Virginia household every year.

These are just a few examples from Director Reeve T. Bull’s Regulatory Review article on how Virginia has successfully improved regulatory efficiency. This model offers a valuable framework for any state seeking to reduce the burden of regulation on businesses and citizens, ultimately fostering a more dynamic and prosperous economy.

The success of the Virginia Model, building upon the legacy of initiatives like OIRA, underscores a crucial point: regulatory reform is not a one-time event, but rather an ongoing process. To maintain a healthy and vibrant economy, governments must remain vigilant in identifying and eliminating unnecessary regulatory burdens. By continually evaluating existing regulations and streamlining processes, states can create an environment where businesses can thrive, innovation can flourish, and citizens can prosper.

Posted in Government Reform | Comments Off on Governor Youngkin’s Reaganesque Approach to Regulatory Reform Should be a Model for Other States

End Federal Control of Our Schools, Close the U.S. Department of Education

Posted on November 20, 2024 by Derrick A. Max
Share this article on:

While the U.S. Department of Education is only a small fraction of total education spending – accounting for less than 10 percent of education spending in the United States (9 percent in Virginia) – it has a huge impact on how states and localities spend their own money on schools, on how teachers are educated and certified, and on the curriculum used in classrooms. Through regulation, accreditation, grant language, testing, and the force of law, the U.S. Department of Education literally steers how most education funds are spent in this country.

The Department of Education’s one size fits all, Washington-centered approach reduces efficiency, penalizes innovation, limits the ability of schools to respond to changes in student needs, pushes progressive cultural beliefs, and generally funds bloat and bureaucracy over teachers and classrooms.

While working for the Oversight and Investigation’s Subcommittee of the Education and the Workforce Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, I was part of a team of Congressional staff that worked on Chairman Pete Hoekstra’s “Education at a Crossroads” report (cited generously in the much maligned Project 2025 education chapter by my friend, Dr. Lindsey Burke). Notably, our report found that only 65 to 70 cents of every dollar sent to local schools ever made it to the classroom.

Massive education grants like Title I and smaller grants like the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act both require Department of Education staff to write grant language, lawyers to review this language, programmers to code online portals, and teams of reviewers to grade and inspect submitted applications.  The grants are written in a way to direct spending to align with the “experts” at the Department or in Congress.

Worse yet, the work required of those seeking the grants at the state and local level are equally burdensome. Staff, consultants and contractors are hired to write grants, staff lawyers review submissions, massive amounts of data are collected and formatted, and accountants are hired to review and justify their grant requests. Then, if federal funds are received, ongoing, labor-intensive reports must then be written and submitted at great cost to the local schools. Finally, painfully, the whole process begins again the next year.

In our “Crossroads” report, we tracked several grants from the Department of Education to local schools and back to the Department. We were stunned to learn that some of the smaller grant programs like Safe and Drug Free Schools required far more expenditures on staff at the local level to apply for the grants than was received in funding from the federal Department of Education.

One small school we called estimated they had spent close to $1,000 applying for a grant that amounted to $19. We learned they used this money to pay for parking on a field trip to a police drug testing lab. When we inquired why they would do this, they noted the importance of the imprimatur of being a Safe and Drug Free School – and the sign they would be able to hang on their building highlighting their participation (a sign purchased and hung at their own expense, mind you). One wonders what results they could have had on making their school safe and drug free if they had used the $1,000 on anti-drug activities or on other needs that would have helped their students make positive choices.

Sadly, even if President-elect Donald Trump eliminates the U.S. Department of Education, there are hundreds of education programs strewn throughout the government, many overlapping, and most completely ineffective. Our “Crossroads” report (verified by the Government Accountability Office) identified 481 education programs in 36 different Departments and agencies spending an additional $37 billion on education — all outside of the Department of Education’s budget. I have to imagine that these numbers have only grown since.

This sprawling, often overlapping, mostly ineffective labyrinth of programs drives the direction of school spending. For every “problem” there is an aptly named program designed to give politicians rhetoric to use with voters to suggest they are solving real issues. Yet, test scores continue to decline, and violence and drug use continue to plague our children.

As a founder and former principal of a private school in Washington, DC, the decision to apply (or not apply) for federal education funding was never easy. Before taking federal Title I funds for low-income children, we had to consider the impact of bringing outside educators into our school, using a curriculum that may or may not align with our program, while setting aside scarce “isolated” space for the Title I teachers to use the few times they came to the school. We would have to review the massive paperwork and reporting obligations and the penalties for non-compliance.

A similar calculus was made for each of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act “Title” programs. How much were we willing to bend our program to the federal mandates? How many administrative staff could we shift to these programs. Worse, the mandatory training sessions for these programs were little more than a hodgepodge of woke education ideology where school staff and administrators were treated dismissively as if we should genuflect to the federal staff providing us these much-needed resources. They knew best. We, not surprisingly, refused most federal funds and were better for it. There is no question we would have participated if the U.S. Department of Education had just taken a census of our qualifying students and provided us a single grant to use as we saw fit to benefit our students.

Historically, education was largely left in the hands of state and local governments. This decentralization was intentional, reflecting the belief that education is best managed close to the communities it serves. States have varying needs, values, and priorities, and local governments are often more in tune with the specific challenges and opportunities facing their schools. But the drive to get “free” federal money, and the imprimatur it brings, has changed who is in the driver’s seat of our schools.

Governor Youngkin was elected on the promise to give parents control over their children’s education. President-elect Trump’s plan to close the Department of Education would give the Commonwealth a unique opportunity to reconsider its education spending. Freed from mandates and the lure of federal grants, the Governor and the General Assembly could work together to find a way to make historic changes in our schools.

The timely reworking of Virginia’s school accountability system and the upcoming adjustments in our school funding formula could both help drive freed up dollars to where there is the greatest need and fund innovation that could drive success in our most vulnerable populations. The Thomas Jefferson Institute’s Chris Braunlich has expertly written on the need for more accountability and transparency, coupled with a more targeted funding formula.

Moreover, school districts could be empowered to offer more options for parents and students, such as charter schools, private school choice programs, and homeschooling options. A competitive environment that encourages educational innovation can lead to better outcomes for all students.

This ought not to be controversial. Democratic State Senator Perry has sought the establishment of “Recovery Schools” as an option outside of our traditional public schools, and Governor Youngkin has similarly pushed for more innovative “lab schools” – both are good models for the kind of changes that could come with more local control over much needed education funding when the federal government gets out of the way.

Before the partisan bickering begins, Governor Youngkin and leaders of the General Assembly should sit down and discuss the opportunities and challenges of President-elect Trump’s proposal. Too much is at stake to not take this proposal seriously. Our children, especially those in our struggling schools, need to not be used as pawns. Scoring political points on such an issue is not the “Virginia way.”

Posted in Education | Comments Off on End Federal Control of Our Schools, Close the U.S. Department of Education

Trump’s Energy Promises Face Hurdles in Anti-Hydrocarbon Virginia

Posted on November 20, 2024 by Stephen D. Haner
Share this article on:

Once inaugurated, President-elect Donald Trump is expected to immediately mount a major effort to roll back the anti-hydrocarbon fuel agenda of the Biden-Harris years. The positive impact on Virginians will be limited because of our own similar anti-hydrocarbon laws at the state level.

The centerpiece of Trump’s multiple energy campaign promises is expansion of production of American oil and gas, with the hope that greater supply will drop the retail cost. World markets might have a say in how much prices change, but should those prices drop, Virginians would benefit.

Trump has also promised to dismantle the network of interlocking regulations which it took President Biden only three years to jam through a friendly Congress and a compliant federal bureaucracy. Many of the key regulations are already fully adopted and repealing them must follow a process. Most are subject to litigation seeking to prevent their implementation, and the litigation battle would continue but reverse, with plaintiffs seeking instead to demand their implementation.

A good example is the set of new standards for electric power plants, a 2.0 version of the Clean Power Plan which former President Barack Obama imposed, and which Trump repealed and replaced in his first term. A changed leadership at the federal Environmental Protection Agency would be expected to start to dismantle or dilute the regulations. Lawsuits to stop them will be replaced by lawsuits demanding they remain.

This is a situation where a change in the wind in Washington might or might not directly benefit Virginia. The current integrated resource plan for Dominion Energy Virginia calls for the construction of several new natural gas plants, which would have to be built in compliance with the new emissions limits. Under the rules, Dominion’s fleet of existing gas and coal plants would need modifications, in some cases huge investments, to remain in operation into the next decade.

Those costs to Virginia consumers could be avoided or limited if the EPA rules are repealed or watered down. But Virginia’s own Virginia Clean Economy Act is the real impediment to Dominion’s proposed generation plan, calling for the eventual elimination of all coal and gas-fired plants. Neither Trump nor a Republican Congress can repeal or amend VCEA.

Not every state has adopted a state-level ban on such plants, and Virginia is part of a multi-state electricity transmission network. Repeal of Clean Power 2.0 would likely preserve hydrocarbon generation in other parts of the PJM Interconnection and thus help our utilities maintain reliability. But our own power plants might still disappear.

Trump will certainly seek to repeal the auto emissions regulations Biden adopted. They do not ban hydrocarbon motor fuel vehicles but impose fleet-wide emissions standards that force the market toward electric vehicles. Biden’s rules extend to motorcycles, trucks, work vehicles not used on the roads and railroad locomotives.

Right now, vehicles and vehicle dealers in Virginia are governed by those EPA rules. Virginians will benefit if they are indeed repealed. But the 2021 General Assembly had voted to impose California’s emissions rules on autos and light-duty trucks, which were then adopted in Virginia by regulation. Governor Glenn Youngkin (R) has taken the position that those regulations are expiring because the California rules were later revised, and Virginia never adopted the revision.

There is every reason to believe the Democrats in the majority at the General Assembly have the votes to return to the California vehicle emissions regime. Youngkin would veto that in 2025, but in the long run the issue will be decided by the 2025 elections for a new House of Delegates and new governor. With Democrats back in full control, Virginia could in 2026 rejoin California’s energy death march and Virginians would still be stuck with an EV mandate.

One easy step for a new president is reversing his predecessor’s executive orders. Biden issued a major 2021 order to dictate energy policies within the federal government’s own agencies which Trump can kill quickly. Given how many of those agencies have large operations in Virginia, their demand for non-hydrocarbon electricity and for 100% EV purchases and natural gas-free buildings was going to have a Virginia-centered impact.

Trump is also expected to repeal the executive order, issued by Biden in 2021, demanding the massive investment in offshore wind turbines, with a goal of 30 gigawatts of promised (but seldom delivered) wind electricity. Dominion’s Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project (CVOW) met almost 10% of that promise by itself. It is the largest of the Biden-approved projects and one of the furthest along with construction.

Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act is subsidizing CVOW and innumerable other wind, battery, solar and alternate fuel programs around the U.S., with billions in subsidies and tax benefits already committed. Given how many industries have deeply invested to participate in this energy transition, a full repeal is unlikely. Several Republican members of Congress (including Virginia’s Jen Kiggans) have indicated an unwillingness to totally reverse course on that legislation.

A project as far along as Dominion’s CVOW would likely retain the benefits it was promised under IRA. Removing them would greatly increase the ultimate cost to consumers for building and maintaining the turbines. But substantial changes to the IRA or restraints on its future project subsidies might steer the utility away from the two additional Atlantic wind projects and multiple solar and battery projects it is also planning.

Those additional wind and solar projects proposed for Dominion and other Virginia energy providers are mandated by the VCEA state law. If the IRA goes away or is amended to remove future subsidies from non-hydrocarbon projects, but the VCEA-mandated projects proceed anyway, it will cost ratepayers much more. Ultimately, Virginia’s voters need to demand a change in direction in Richmond to match the return to sanity in Washington.

Posted in Government Reform | Comments Off on Trump’s Energy Promises Face Hurdles in Anti-Hydrocarbon Virginia