Hurt's Shilling for Big Polluter Pays Off

Last month, The Green Miles asked "Is there anything State Sen. Robert Hurt (R-Chatham) won't do for his donors at [American Electric Power subsidiary] Appalachian Power?" Today, we're learning more about what's in it for Hurt as he tries to win the GOP nomination to challenge Rep. Tom Perriello (D-5th).

Hurt's shilling came into the spotlight as he made outlandish excuses to defend Appalachian Power's massive rate hike in December. When 5th district voters expressed outrage at the huge price spike in the middle of a recession, Hurt claimed Appalachian Power had no choice but to raise rates because of carbon pollution regulations. Just one problem -- those regulations don't actually exist yet. (Will Hurt next blame AEP's recent minor stock slip on financial reform that has not yet passed?) Hurt has also vigorously rejected mainstream climate science, sounding an awful lot like Tea Party favorite Ken Cuccinelli.

Hurt's first quarter fundraising report shows his efforts paid off handsomely, with AEP delivering a $1,000 donation. That's on top of the $3,250 Appalachian Power has contributed to Hurt's campaigns since 2001, just a fraction of the $64,717 Hurt has received from energy companies over that period, including $20,750 from electric utilities.

And if Hurt plays his cards right, there's a lot more where that came from! Don't believe me? Just ask Virgil Goode!

AEP gave then-Rep. Goode $10,000 in 2008 alone & $25,850 over his Congressional career, making AEP one of his top donors ever (just ahead of Altria/Philip Morris & RJ Reynolds Tobacco).

It's all part of a massive expansion of AEP's political contributions. As recently as the 1998 cycle, AEP's political action committee spent "only" $139,950. But AEP has already spent $875,048 this time around -- and the 2010 cycle's only half over.

Why is AEP suddenly so interested in politics? It may have something to do with those pesky Democrats (like Rep. Perriello) trying to hold polluters accountable for their pollution. Researchers at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst named AEP to the Toxic 100 list, identifying AEP as the 35th-largest corporate producer of air pollution in the United States, releasing roughly 88 million pounds of toxic chemicals into the air every single year.

So the bottom line is, I guess not every customer in Virginia's 5th district is so upset about all that extra money flowing into AEP's coffers & all that pollution going into our air, huh? For Robert Hurt, it just paid off.

Cross-posted from BlueVirginia.us

Will Robert Hurt Say Anything To Cover For His Donors?

Is there anything State Sen. Robert Hurt (R-Chatham) won't do for his donors at Appalachian Power? How about blaming their high rates on laws that don't actually exist? Yup, Robert Hurt is happy to do that:

Appalachian Power had implemented a 12.8-percent rate increase on Dec. 12, an adjustment that was pending before the State Corporation Commission. Virginia law had allowed utility providers to raise rates that were pending approval before the SCC.

However, Gov. Bob McDonnell signed House and Senate bills Wednesday forcing APCo to suspend the pending increase to provide relief for power customers in the commonwealth. The bills were sponsored by Del. Bill Carrico, R-Grayson County, and Sen. Phillip Puckett, D-Russell County. [...]

Sen. Robert Hurt, R-Chatham, said state and federal environmental regulations have played a role in rising energy rates. The federal “cap-and-trade” passed by the House of Representatives last year is an example of the “devastating policies” that affect people’s lives, forcing companies to raise rates to revamp their facilities to follow environmental rules.

For some reason, reporter John Crane of the Danville Register Bee doesn't make this clear, so I will: Carbon regulations do not actually exist yet. Just because something passes the House doesn't make it a law, and so far, the Senate has failed to act on clean energy & climate legislation. This is like blaming your high medical bills on the health insurance reform that hasn't passed yet.

But it's not surprising that Robert Hurt is willing to say anything to cover for Appalachian Power. The polluting power company has contributed $3,250 to Hurt's campaigns since 2001. That's just a fraction of the $64,717 Hurt has received from energy companies over that period, including $20,750 from electric utilities.

Whether you agree with Rep. Tom Perriello's policy positions or not, at least you know what he stands for. Can anyone claim they really know what Robert Hurt stands for -- or do we just know what he'll say to please his donors in hopes of getting elected?

Cross-posted from Blue Virginia

Hurt Puts Dirty Energy Donors Ahead of 5th District Voters

Republicans have a long history of doing battle with science, from evolution to tobacco to stem cells. The latest to step up to the plate to claim science is a sham? State Sen. Robert Hurt (R-VA), who's running for the GOP nomination to challenge Rep. Tom Perriello in Virginia's 5th district. Hurt is running against a large field of teabaggers in the GOP primary, so he's desperate to out-crazy them:

A question about “Climategate” produced agreement among the three candidates who answered it.

Hurt said Climategate is “scientists who have given us something that is not true. It is faulty information and it has real consequences in the 5th District, in the loss of jobs and in power bills from Appalachian Power Co.”

How convenient that Hurt is standing up for Appalachian Power, which has contributed $3,250 to his campaigns since 2001. That's just a fraction of the $64,717 he's received from energy companies over that period, including $20,750 from electric utilities.

Hurt's climate position puts him clearly out of step with the 5th district. Only 25% of voters there oppose a cap & trade system to regulate global warming pollution. While Hurt is cozying up to Appalachian Power, Virginians say they're getting screwed by our energy status quo:

"I'm tired of my head being buried in the sand and my butt up in the air," says Montgomery Co. resident Margie Hatcher. "That's what we've all been doing, much too long."

Look, the science of climate change is settled. The only thing that seems to be unsettled is Robert Hurt's opinions and even his biography, which can change from moment to moment. 

As for Rep. Tom Perriello? Even his opponents call him "a man of principle."

SCC Votes More Cash for Virginia's Clunker of an Energy System

Last week, Virginia's State Corporation Commission issued a ruling on Appalachian Power's request to raise rates. It granted a partial rate increase to "recover fuel costs" (translation: higher cost of dirty coal), but rejected a rate increase for renewable energy:

The SCC also denied recovery at this time of the costs to purchase power from two wind projects that were not included in APCo's renewable energy program, which the SCC approved last year, because of the high cost of the purchased power.

According to the Roanoke Times, the recession played a major role for the commission:

The SCC attributed the fuel rate reduction to "several legal and factual findings" related to Appalachian's application and associated testimony. But it also referenced economic struggles of the utility's customers.

America's energy policies are a seesaw:

• We can't get off fossil fuels when the economy is bad, because even though energy prices tend to be low, we're told already-stressed consumers can't possibly bear even another cent of short-term transition cost to clean energy.
• But when the economy is good, we're told we can't get off fossil fuels because energy prices are so high, already-stressed consumers can't possibly bear any risk of even another cent of short-term transition cost to clean energy.

Of course, we don't stay on the seesaw by accident. It's a choice. As the Roanoke Times reports, there's a subjective decision here from the SCC commissioners, two of whom were appointed by Gov. Tim Kaine:

By Virginia law, Appalachian, a subsidiary of Ohio-based American Electric Power, is entitled to recover, dollar for dollar, "prudently incurred fuel costs." Coal is Appalachian's primary fuel. The fuel factor formula also includes costs for purchasing power from other utilities.

So even though the price of coal keeps spiking, even though coal employment keeps plummeting, even though burning coal pollutes our air and is one of the main drivers of global warming, even though mountaintop removal is literally changing the face of southwest Virginia forever, the costs of coal-fired power are "prudent." And even though the price of wind power keeps dropping, even though wind power promises sustainable jobs, even though wind power is pollution-free and protects Virginia's natural resources, wind power is apparently of limited prudence in the eyes of Virginia's SCC.

Are there going to be some transition costs to clean energy? Of course. If you have a broken-down car, there are going to be transition costs to buy a new one. At some point, you have to stop throwing good money after bad in repairing your old car and decide to make a fresh start. If we don't, we'll be handing our kids the keys to what's basically the same jalopy we've been driving since the 19th century. But instead of investing in a new direction, Virginia's SCC has voted to give more cash to our clunker of an energy system.

I asked an Appalachian Power spokesman about the decision:

The SCC denied recovery "at this time" of the costs to purchase power from our wind projects in the current fuel factor that will be in place through August 2010. This does not preclude Appalachian from seeking recovery of these projects through other means in the future.

The wind projects were Beech Ridge, in West Virginia, and Grand Ridge Illinois. A portion of the wind from Camp Grove in Illinois and Fowler Ridge in Indiana are being recovered.

Let's hope Appalachian Power continues their push for more wind power projects. They certainly didn't get any encouragement in their effort this month from Gov. Kaine's SCC.

Cross-posted from Blue Virginia