A Virginia House of Delegates subcommittee of the House Labor and Commerce Committee on February 17, 2011 voted to kill a bill (SB 1401) approved in the Virginia Senate that would have greatly improved unemployment insurance in Virginia and added some $130 million in federal funds to Virginia’s financially troubled unemployment trust fund. (See separate article on SB 1401).

Advocates for the unemployed were very disappointed with this ill designed and mean spiritied vote that will not ony hurt unemployed people in Virginia, but also keep $130 million from being added to Virginia unemployment fund which is mostly bankrupt, and now will force substantial increased employment taxes owing to the short fall in funds.

This vote unfortunately is a victory of an ideology of stupidity over practical improvements to both the State of Virginia’s precarious budget and to better treatment for Virginians who lose their jobs in the future. The bill would have given 26 more weeks of UI benefits to unemployed person finished training, UI benefits to part-time employees, and to employees who have to quit owing to a compelling family emergency.

The Virginia Senate approved senate bill 1401 on Feb. 8, 2011 that will allow part-time workers who lose their jobs to qualify for unemployment insurance (UI), as well as workers who have to quit their job for a compelling family reason, and also allow those receiving UI to continue while they finish an approved training program. If the House of Delegates also approves the bill and the Governor signs it, the State of Virginia will receive about $130 million in federal funds for the state unemployment fund now seriously in the red.

Several Green members have been working for the past two years with unemployed people and traveled to Richmond with two unemployed workers to tell their stories of unemployment. Marie Pellegrino related the difficulty facing unemployed people in Arlington:
Once I had a job making over $40,000 a year with great benefits, and I thought I would have that job till I decided to retire. But just short of vesting into the pension plan of this corporation I was let go, along with thousands of other people who worked for this company.

I thought I would have no trouble finding another job, because I had great skills and never had any problems getting a job before. I got my unemployment benefits and I told my husband whose only income is coming from Social Security, that everything would be fine. That was four years ago.

One of the things that ends with your employment is your health benefits. My COBRA payment was more than the maxim payment I was receiving from unemployment, and we still had to pay our mortgage. My husband and I started using our savings to pay our bills.

When my COBRA ended, I had to use HIPAA to keep my health insurance. I have a pre-existing condition. I have Epilepsy. I have to take medication so I won’t have seizures. Medication is very expensive. My payment for my health insurance is $1,276.00 a month. How many of you here pay that much for your health insurance, for just one person. This is a mortgage payment for me.

My husband and I had to get a home equity loan to pay for my health insurance, our mortgage, and other bills after our savings was gone. Now that is gone too. The house that we owned for nearly 30 years, raised our children in and were planning to grow old in is now for Sale. I pray every night that someone buys it, because I’m borrowing money from family to make the payments so we don’t lose it.

I have received no help from the Federal Government or the State of Virginia other than the 26 weeks of unemployment given me. There were no extensions, no one paid for my COBRA, and I couldn’t even get food stamps. I owned a car, and a house. You have to have nothing and be laying in the gutter to get help in this country and this State.

I would like to think if I find a part-time job, because I will take any job now. That if my employer lets me go, I could go to unemployment and get something to help pay the bills. That’s what SB 1401 will do.

Comments of the Arlington Green Party on the Arlington County Community Energy and Sustainability Task Force Draft Report

The Arlington Green Party has been following the development of the Community Energy Plan with great interest, and we have monitored the progress of the Task Force charged with developing a long range, comprehensive plan for meeting Arlington’s energy’s needs for the first half of the twenty first century. We believe that the County government should be commended for initiating this effort, although we feel that the composition of the Task Force and the processes and procedures of the Task Force in producing its report and plan could have been improved. In this report we will not address this issue. Rather we will limit our remarks to the merits of the specific energy strategies recommended in the draft report.

As a general matter, with the exception of initiating a District Energy model, the draft report seems to regard the County government’s roles primarily as citizen/business energy education, moral suasion, and serving as a resource for individuals and businesses in implementing the actions recommended in the final Report. We agree with these policies, but we also believe that the County government should more aggressively seek ways to provide direct financial incentives, such as tax relief, to individuals and businesses that institute significant energy-saving measures.

We also believe that the County should place greater emphasis on raising environmental and energy consciousness in Arlington’s public schools. We believe that changing the zero-sum consumer ethic should begin with our schools and that the most effective strategies toward molding a sustainability culture start with building environmental/energy awareness in our classrooms and in the administration of our schools.

Finally, we believe that the County should advocate with state and federal officials for those policies which will assist it reaching its Community Energy Plan goals. For example, establishment of a carbon tax, and monetizing and trading carbon tax credits could provide financial incentives to individuals and businesses that employ energy saving measures. Also, modifications to the Dillon Rule doctrine would give the County greater flexibility in implementing its Energy Plan.

B1. Improve the energy efficiency of renovated homes and buildings.

This is a policy item with which we strongly agree. However, the policy recommendation seems to suggest only a limited role for the county government. We recognize that in some areas, the county government’s role is modest, such as in determining building codes. Still, we believe that the county government can do more, such as subsidizing home energy audits, especially for low-income residents. Another example would be funding a green jobs program, such as the one proposed by the Arlington Green Party, which would train unemployed, low income individuals to audit and retrofit individual homes for greater energy and environmental efficiency.

While the county may be limited in its authority to provide energy-efficiency tax incentives to either existing or new homes and buildings, the county government needs to explore ways to use its existing tax authority to provide incentives to promote energy efficiency.

B2. Improve the energy efficiency of new homes and buildings.

This recommendation is largely dependent upon the Commonwealth’s authority to modify building codes. While we agree in principle with this recommendation, as a practical matter, implementation of this recommendation may be beyond the authority of the county government.

In meeting the goals of the draft Task Force Report, the County government has said that it seeks to “lead by example.” We applaud this ethic, and we believe it can be implemented in a number of ways. For example, we believe it is not unreasonable to expect that all public buildings, especially schools, built or renovated in the future in Arlington can be net zero GHG emitters. Recently, we were dismayed to learn that the three new high school buildings use three to four times the amount of energy as the old buildings. We believe that this outcome is not acceptable and presents a poor example for the private sector. Meeting a net zero GHG standard means using current European technology to construct buildings. We believe that current LEED certification does not adequately measure building energy efficiency. Thus, all new or renovated public buildings in Arlington should meet the much tougher standard of net zero GHG use.

B3. Manage home and buildings operations to reduce energy costs.

The implementation of this recommendation is again met primarily met through education and persuasion. These efforts, such as the green competition among current commercial building operators, though laudable can be expected to have only a modest impact the county’s energy footprint.

B4. Create a mixed-use, net-zero energy scale project.

This recommendation is critical to demonstrate the viability of the District Energy concept discussed below. However, if the District Energy idea itself is not practical, then this recommendation becomes moot.

DE1. Establish District Energy systems to high-density areas owned and operated by a new Utility.

Clearly, the District Energy model provides significant benefits for higher density developed areas, and these advantages were discussed at length during the task force meetings-greatly improved efficiency, better security and a smaller GHG footprint. In our opinion, the establishment of District Energy entities is the linchpin to the Community Energy Plan.
Nonetheless, implementation of an Arlington District Energy model is uncertain at best. This, of course, is due to the Dillon Rule legal doctrine which generally holds that the States retain powers not specifically granted to local jurisdictions. In short, under the Dillon Rule doctrine, Arlington does not have the authority to establish a District Energy utility entity. Thus, to create a District Energy entity, Arlington would have to seek and obtain authority from the Commonwealth.

The question of the legal sufficiency of the District Energy model was raised several times during the deliberations of the Task Force, but each time the response was that the issue was “being explored.” In our view, the likelihood that the county could gain the necessary legislative relief is remote. This is due largely to the anticipated opposition of the large incumbent utility interests currently providing energy to Arlington and throughout Virginia. These interests have large investments in the current system of remote power generation and in maintaining the current power grid model. Despite the fact that the Task Force included the utility interests, we believe that the utilities have the interest and the influence with the Commonwealth legislature to block any attempt by Arlington County to initiate any District Energy model.

In our view, the only modest hope in addressing the concerns of the utility interests would be to persuade them to become major stakeholders in any District Energy model. Under this scenario, the utility interests would have to be convinced of several conditions. First customers would need to persuade the utility that the District Energy model does not threaten its long-term interests. Rather the District Energy model presents an opportunity for new partnerships and growth. It should be emphasized that the District Energy model is already being adopted by other jurisdictions and that failure to accept the District Energy model will place Commonwealth businesses at a disadvantage.

Even if the concerns of the utility interests are met, Commonwealth approval of the District Energy model is not certain. The Commonwealth legislature has a strong conservative culture that remains suspicious of change and of granting local jurisdictions any additional authority. Since the District Energy model is viable only for high-density population areas, and most of the Commonwealth will remain rural/suburban for the foreseeable future, it is not likely that most rural/suburban interests will see any significant benefit to authorizing the new District Energy model.

RE1. Increase use of solar photovoltaic County-wide.

Again, we agree in principle with this recommendation. Again, however, apart from education and exhortation, the County’s role in providing incentives is limited. Offering property tax relief to residences and businesses may be in conflict with the Dillon Rule Commonwealth prerogatives. Also a balanced approach to photovoltaic useage may be in order. For example, as was discussed in the Task Force meetings, preservation and enhancement of Arlington’s tree canopy should also be considered in the effort to promote solar photovoltaic useage.
RE2. Increase use of clean and renewable energy sources for domestic hot water and space heating needs.

We agree with this recommendation, but we believe that greater tax incentives will make it more viable.

T1. Reduce vehicle mile traveled.

We agree with this recommendation, but we believe that more can be done. For example, in many single-family detached home neighborhoods, there are no sidewalks. This lack of sidewalks discourages walking and increases use of the automobiles, thus increasing energy useage and the GHG footprint. We believe that a reasonable goal would be that each street in Arlington should have a sidewalk on at least one side by the year 2050. Working toward this goal would not only decrease vehicle miles traveled, but also would improve pedestrian safety.

T2. Increase passenger vehicle fuel efficiency.

This is another recommendation relying primarily on persuasion and education to be effective. While we do not disagree with the spirit of this recommendation, once again we believe that a more effective vehicle for implementation would be tax incentives, such as reduction in the personal property tax for fuel-efficient vehicles. Alternatively, an increase in the gasoline tax would provide an incentive for useage of more fuel-efficient vehicles.

T3. Reduce carbon content of fuels.

We take no position on this recommendation, but we would note that it remains unclear if the use of biofuels decreases the carbon footprint or if the use of biofuels increases efficiency.

S1. Institutionalizing energy planning and processes.

We agree that a comprehensive plan for implementing and measuring energy reduction by appropriate County officials and agencies should be part of the County’s overall energy plan.

S2. Create and implement an Energy Performance Labeling program.

We agree with this recommendation, especially that “[t]he County will lead by example and start displaying Energy Performance Labels in their municipal facilities.”

S3. Gather community input, measure public awareness and improve energy literacy.

We have no argument with this recommendation, but we would note that market forces, such as rising energy prices are likely to be a more powerful incentive to modify energy consumption behavior.

S4. Provide education and training.

We agree with this recommendation, especially as applied to Arlington’s schools. Once again we would note that a green jobs program, such as that proposed by the Arlington Green Party, would address the many of the needs specified by this recommendation. Moreover, such a program would assist the unemployed as well as help the County reach its long-term energy reduction goals.

With regard to vocational education and career opportunities for Arlington students, the Arlington Public Schools should be enlisted to begin a green technology course of study, in conjunction and agreement with NOVA Community College which already has a green technology certification.

S5. Identify and promote financial incentives to improve energy efficiency.

We agree with this recommendation.

S6. Acquire, register, and report greenhouse gas emissions data and monetize as appropriate.

We agree with this recommendation.

S7. Work with neighboring jurisdictions on a regional energy and climate plan.

We agree with this recommendation, especially given that a significant portion of Arlington’s greenhouse emissions come from individuals transiting Arlington. Also Arlington’s emphasis on reducing vehicle miles traveled requires even greater utilization of Metro service, a regional issue.