TLN-5-12-21

L

EGACY Yesterday. Today. Tomorrow.

WEDNESDAYS • May 12, 2021

INSIDE & ONLINE ‘Anybody’s game’ in June Dem. primaries - 2 Reducing housing discrimination in Va. - 4 Former priest charged in child molestation

Richmond & Hampton Roads

LEGACYNEWSPAPER.COM • FREE

Virginia officials ask to delay lawsuit over unemployment insurance delays NED OLIVER

The Virginia Employment Commission asked a judge this week for extra time to respond to a class-action lawsuit over long delays processing jobless claims.

The request drew a mocking response from the plaintiffs’ lawyers and was largely rejected by a federal judge, who limited the extension to just four days. The state had requested three weeks.

“In defense of a lawsuit premised on the allegation that the VEC cannot timely respond to Virginians seeking federal insured unemployment, the VEC suggests that it also cannot timely respond to them here,” wrote lawyers for the plaintiffs who have been waiting months for benefits. “If this defendant, with all its resources and what should be both a legal and political motivation to avoid delay, cannot answer a fairly simple complaint 30 days after first receiving a copy, the VEC has bigger problems still.”

Virginia has struggled to keep with a surge of unemployment insurance claims since the pandemic began, continuing to rank last in the country in key federal performance benchmarks.

A coalition of legal aid groups, led by Charlottesville’s Legal Aid Justice Center and the private law firm Consumer Litigation Associates, filed the lawsuit last month on behalf of five residents around the state after concluding the state was making no serious efforts to improve the situation, which has left thousands waiting months for what are intended to be emergency benefits.

The Virginia Employment Commission’s lawyers contended in a filing that the standard 30-day deadline to respond was insufficient given the complexity of the case. They posited that there would be no harm in granting additional time.

“The scope of this lawsuit is broad and the issues presented are factually complex,” the commission’s lawyer wrote. “There are complex issues bearing on this court’s subject matter jurisdiction that require thoughtful consideration. Counsel requires additional time to investigate and analyze these claims so that it may fulfill its professional obligations to (Virginia Employment Commissioner Ellen Marie) Hess to conduct an appropriate factual investigation and present a well-reasoned response to this court and the parties.”

Lawyers for the plaintiff countered that none of the issues raised in the lawsuit were new to the Virginia Employment Commission, noting they had first brought their concerns to the state six months ago.

And unlike the state, they worried that

additional delays would lead to significant harm.

“Defendant’s failures have led to homelessness, hunger and misery for vulnerable citizens who have the legal right to expect that its government follows the Constitution and statutory law, and those harms continue each day this process is delayed,” they wrote.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson appeared to agree with the plaintiffs, writing in his motion that he was limiting the extension to just four days.

“In the interests of securing a just and speedy determination of plaintiffs’ claims, this matter demands immediate attention,” Hudson wrote.

“Delays in this particular case may well have concrete and immediate impacts on Virginians struggling to make ends meet during a global pandemic.” - Virginia Mercury

The LEGACY

2 • May 12, 2021

‘Anybody’s game’: Democratic LG candidates still working to introduce themselves to Va. voters GRAHAM MOOMAW VM - If the last public poll was any indicator, Virginia Democrats still have lots of homework to do before making their picks in the primary for lieutenant governor.

A Christopher Newport University poll conducted in mid-April found 64 percent of likely primary voters undecided in the race, with Del. Sam Rasoul, D-Roanoke, the apparent leader with 12 percent support.

“We’re glad to see the way things are trending,” Rasoul said in an interview, attributing his leading status to a “values-based campaign” focused on in-person trips to cities and counties throughout Virginia, including areas where voters “feel forgotten.”

The numbers suggest there’s still lots of room for movement in an open field that once stood at eight candidates but has shrunk to six heading into the final month before the June 8 primary.

The other five candidates still in the race — Del. Hala Ayala, Del. Mark Levine, former Fairfax County NAACP leader Sean Perryman, Norfolk City Councilwoman Andria McClellan and businessman Xavier Warren — all had 1 or 2 percent support, the CNU poll found.

“I think it’s anybody’s game,” McClellan said in a recent interview.

With a crowded primary for governor happening at the same time, said longtime Virginia political analyst Bob Holsworth, it can be difficult for candidates running in a downballot contest to try to build a statewide profile.

“Many of these people are unknown outside of their own region,” Holsworth said.

Candidates are just starting to roll out their first TV ads, and the arrival of warm weather is giving them more freedom to do socially

Del. Hala Ayala

Del. Sam Rasoul

distanced events rather than campaigning via computer screen.

Part of the challenge for candidates running for lieutenant governor is explaining just what it is the lieutenant governor does.

The mostly ceremonial job involves presiding over the state Senate and breaking ties in the upper chamber, as current Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax recently did to pass legislation legalizing marijuana.

The lieutenant governor can advocate for certain causes, but has limited policymaking power. But if the governor becomes incapacitated, the lieutenant governor steps in to run the state, and the role has traditionally been seen as a launchpad to higher office.

Rasoul, a rare western Virginia progressive who has at times criticized his party for what he sees as an inability to connect with voters outside traditional Democratic strongholds, also led the field in the most recent fundraising period, reporting more than $950,000 on hand as of March 31.

“I know we have many candidates to choose from,” Rasoul said. “We

feel as though we are a true voice of the people. That’s the way I have legislated and voted over the past eight years.”

Shortly after those campaign finance numbers came out, Del. Elizabeth Guzman, D-Prince William, one of two Latinas in the race, announced she was dropping her bid for statewide office to focus on winning another term in her House of Delegates district, where she’s facing a strong primary challenge from Democrat Rod Hall.

Paul Goldman, a onetime aide to former Gov. Doug Wilder, dropped out of the lieutenant governor race early last month.

Guzman’s departure seemed to free Democratic leaders to jump in and endorse Ayala, D-Prince William, who had already chosen not to seek another term in the House and could help Democrats avoid an all-male ticket in a year when former Gov. Terry McAuliffe and Attorney General Mark Herring are trying to keep or return to offices they’ve held before. Ayala, who identifies as Afro-Latina and is a member of the Virginia

Legislative Black Caucus, would be the first woman of color to serve in statewide office.

Late last month, Ayala was endorsed by Gov. Ralph Northam, House Speaker Eileen FillerCorn and House Majority Leader Charniele Herring, all of whom are backing McAuliffe for governor over two other competitors, Sen. Jennifer McClellan and former delegate Jennifer Carroll Foy, who are both vying to be the first Black woman elected governor of any state.

In a news release from Ayala’s campaign, Filler-Corn said Ayala would bring “historic representation to the highest levels of our state government.”

Ayala campaign manager Veronica Ingham said Ayala is in a strong position heading into the final month, with the big endorsements underscoring the relationships Ayala, a former activist, has built since joining the House as part of the Democratic wave of 2017.

“We know that voters want to make history and elect the first woman of color to the lieutenant governor position,” Ingham said.

State Democrats have largely credited women, particularly women of color, as a driving force behind electoral successes that allowed the party to take full control of the statehouse for the first time in decades.

“They are the mainstay of the coalition,” said Holsworth. “In this instance, with McAuliffe being what seems to be a relatively clear favorite at the top of the ticket, the diversity, if the Democrats are going to have it, is going to have to come from the LG race or the AG race. Or both.”

In the primary for attorney general, Del. Jay Jones, D-Norfolk, is challenging Attorney General Mark Herring. Jones would be

(continued on page 4)

www.LEGACYnewspaper.com

May 12, 2021 • 3

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE COMMENT TO THE STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION ON THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE FEE TO BE PAID

BY RETAIL CUSTOMERS OF VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY FOR THE PERCENTAGE OF INCOME PAYMENT PROGRAM CASE NO. PUR-2020-00109 During its 2020 Session, the Virginia General Assembly enacted what has become known as the Virginia Clean Economy Act (“VCEA”). As pertinent here, the VCEA required the State Corporation Commission (“Commission”) to determine the universal service fees to be collected from customers of Virginia Electric and Power Company d/b/a Dominion Energy Virginia (“Dominion”) and Appalachian Power Company (“APCo”) to fund the Percentage of Income Payment Program, or PIPP, established by statute. PIPP funds would be allocated to retail customers of Dominion and APCo to reduce the energy burden of utility customers participating in certain public assistance programs. The VCEA further required that the universal service fees “shall not be collected from customers . . . until such time as the PIPP is established.”

On December 23, 2020, the Commission issued an Order in this docket determining a universal service fee for Dominion of $0.001125 per kilowatt-hour (“kWh”) to recover approximately $93 million annually. This universal service fee was approved “with no effective date at this time.” The Commission also ordered that, “[u]pon enactment of legislation setting forth further details on the PIPP and subsequent direction by this Commission, Dominion shall file for review and revision (if necessary) of the PIPP fee, prior to collection of the fee from customers.”

On March 24, 2021, the Governor of Virginia signed what has become Chapter 308 of the 2021 Virginia Acts of Assembly. This law establishes the PIPP Fund on the books of the Comptroller. Chapter 308 also modifies the definition of “PIPP eligible utility customer”; sets caps on the annual cost of PIPP-related programs, including administrative costs, at $100 million for Dominion and $25 million for APCo; requires the Commission to initiate proceedings to provide for an annual true-up of the universal service fee within 60 days of commencement of the PIPP; and requires the Commission to promulgate “any rules necessary to ensure” funds collected from Dominion’s and APCo’s universal service fees are directed to the PIPP Fund and that the utilities receive adequate compensation from the PIPP Fund for all reasonable PIPP costs, including bill credits for PIPP-eligible customers.

Finally, Chapter 308 requires the Commission to issue an order “as soon as practicable” following the July 1, 2021 effective date of Chapter 308, to begin the collection of the universal service fee from customers.

The Commission entered an Order on Additional Proceedings that, among other things, reopens and remands this case to a Hearing Examiner for additional procedures concerning the PIPP and associated universal service fee, including consideration of specific questions appended to the Order (“Appendix”). Among other things, these questions are designed to help the Commission discern whether Chapter 308’s modification to the definition of “PIPP eligible utility customer” requires a change to the universal service fee; when the universal service fee should start being collected; and what costs the initial fee collections should be designed to recover.

TAKE NOTICE: At the previously approved rate of $0.001125 per kWh to recover approximately $93 million annually in universal service fees from Dominion customers, a residential customer using 1,000 kWh of electricity per month would experience a monthly bill increase of approximately $1.13. The amount of the fee, as well as the timing of its implementation, are matters under review in this proceeding. The universal fee ultimately approved by the Commission in this docket may be higher or lower than the previously set fee subject to a statutory cap. Under Chapter 308, the cap on the annual cost of PIPP-related programs, including administrative costs, is $100 million for Dominion.

The Order on Additional Proceedings directs Dominion to make a supplemental filing on or before May 12, 2021, responding to the Appendix and also allows interested persons an opportunity to file comments, to request a hearing, or both on or before May 28, 2021.

The Commission has taken judicial notice of the ongoing health emergency related to the spread of the coronavirus, or COVID-19, and the declarations of emergency issued at both the state and federal levels. All pleadings, briefs, or other documents required to be served in this matter shall be submitted electronically to the extent authorized by 5 VAC 5-20150, Copies and format, of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 5 VAC 5-20-10 et seq. (“Rules of Practice”). Confidential and Extraordinarily Sensitive Information shall not be submitted electronically and should comply with 5 VAC 5-20-170, Confidential information, of the Rules of Practice. For the duration of the COVID-19 emergency, any person seeking to hand deliver and physically file or submit any pleading or other document shall contact the Commission’s Clerk’s Office Document Control Center at (804) 371-9838 to arrange the delivery.

Pursuant to 5 VAC 5-20-140, Filing and service, of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, the Commission has directed that service on parties and Commission Staff in this matter shall be performed electronically. Please refer to the Commission’s June 11, 2020 Order Establishing Proceeding for further instructions on Confidential or Extraordinarily Sensitive Information.

On or before May 28, 2021, any interested person or entity may file comments responding to the Appendix and to Dominion’s supplemental filing, and may also address any related matters for the Commission’s consideration. Comments shall be made by following the instructions found on the Commission’s website: scc.virginia.gov/pages/Case-Information. Commenters are urged to submit comments electronically, though comments also may be sent to the Clerk of the Commission, c/o Document Control Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218-2118.

On or before May 28, 2021, any interested person or entity may file with the Clerk of the Commission, in accordance with the Rules of Practice, a request that the Commission convene a hearing on the Appendix and on Dominion’s supplemental filing. All requests for hearing must include the email address of the filer or its counsel, along with (i) a precise statement of the filing party’s interest in the proceeding; (ii) a statement of the specific action sought to the extent then known; (iii) a statement of the legal basis for such action; and (iv) a precise statement why the issues raised in the request for hearing cannot be addressed adequately without a hearing. Filers are urged to make their requests electronically via scc.virginia.gov/clk/efiling, though requests for hearing also may be sent to the Clerk of the Commission at the physical address listed above. All requests for hearing, however submitted, shall be served simultaneously on Commission Staff; on counsel for Dominion, Lisa R. Crabtree, Esquire, McGuireWoods LLP, Gateway Plaza, 800 East Canal Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, lcrabtree@mcguirewoods.com; and on all respondents in this case. If a sufficient request for hearing is not received, the Commission may consider the matter and enter an order based upon the papers filed herein.

All documents filed in this case shall refer to Case No. PUR-2020-00109. Any documents filed in paper form with the Office of the Clerk of the Commission in this docket may use both sides of the paper. In all other respects, all filings shall comply fully with the requirements of 5 VAC 5-20-150, Copies and format, of the Commission’s Rules of Practice.

The Commission’s Rules of Practice and copies of the Commission’s Order Establishing Proceeding, Order on Additional Proceedings including the Appendix, and other documents filed in Case No. PUR-2020-00109, may be found on the Commission’s website: scc.virginia.gov/pages/Case-Information. Dominion’s supplemental filing also may be viewed at this website after it is filed.

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY

4 • May 12, 2021

The LEGACY

Op/Ed & Letters Minimum wage increase is way overdue ROGER CHESNEY Here’s a story for all the folks who thought Virginia shouldn’t have raised its minimum wage this month to $9.50 an hour, from the previous rate of $7.25. It’s the first increase in a dozen years in Virginia, which had followed the federal standard.

Yours truly entered the workforce back in high school, toiling at what many of us claim as our first formal jobs — fast-food restaurants. I flipped burgers, bused tables and mopped floors at Burger King and later, McDonald’s. In the mid-tolate 1970s, the money was actually enough to pay a sizable amount of my college tuition and books.

Please don’t bawl, 20-somethings.

Mind you, the fast-food gig required more brawn than brains, plus the ability to deal with customers who were often nasty and rude “just because.” I got my share of burns. Confronted a wouldbe pickpocket. For all that, the minimum wage I earned in 1978 was a princely $2.65 an hour.

A government inflation calculator says that meager amount has the buying power today of $11.23. So even with latest minimum-wage hike approved by state lawmakers, low-income workers around Virginia are essentially making less than I earned more than 40 years ago!

There’s something wrong about that.

A full-time employee who works The LEGACY NEWSPAPER Vol. 7 No. 20 Mailing Address P.O. Box 12474 Richmond, VA 23241 Office Address 105 1/2 E. Clay St. Richmond, VA 23219 Call: 804-644-1550 Online www.legacynewspaper.com

52 weeks a year — even on the new minimum wage in Virginia — will earn less than $20,000 annually.

That’s before taxes. A congressional fact sheet for a higher minimum says one in nine U.S. laborers has poverty-level wages, even when they work full time and year-round.

Sure, such workers might have other gigs (because they have to). They may not be the only wage-earner in their households. Government aid probably supplements their income.

But, still. This is barely subsistence living. Folks who decry “welfare programs” should be gung-ho about raising this important wage floor.

So I grit my teeth at the business organizations, shop owners and Republicans in the General Assembly who reflexively opposed the increase in the commonwealth. Dozens of states and Washington, D.C., had already boosted their rates above the federal minimum. They include Maryland, Delaware and Arkansas.

Subsequent hikes in Virginia would bring the rate here to $12 an hour in 2023. This issue is highly politicized, highly debated. It’s easy to find studies, papers and economists who support your point of view about the minimum wage and what increases in the rate — or the lack thereof — do to the financial outlook of businesses and workers.

The minimum wage started in 1938 under FDR, during the Great

(continued on page 5) The LEGACY welcomes all signed letters and all respectful opinions. Letter writers and columnists opinions are their own and endorsements of their views by The LEGACY should be inferred. The LEGACY assumes no responsibility for unsolicited material.

Annual Subscription Rates Virginia - $50 Other states - $75 Outside U.S.- $100 The Virginia Legacy © 2020

Lt. Gov. race people to vote for me because I’m (from page 2) the most qualified.”

Virginia’s first Black attorney general, but the CNU poll showed Herring maintaining a fairly comfortable lead, with 42 percent support compared to 18 percent for Jones.

Holsworth said he’s usually skeptical of the impact of endorsements, but party leaders rallying behind Ayala could give her a boost in a field of relative unknowns with no incumbent in the mix.

“My sense is that him putting his thumb on the scale there is likely to have an impact,” Holsworth said of Northam’s backing of Ayala.

“And it’s certainly not good news for either Rasoul or the other candidates in the race.”

Ayala isn’t the only candidate who could diversify the Democratic slate in the lieutenant governor spot.

Apart from Ayala, McClellan is now the only other woman in the race and the only Democrat running for the job from the Hampton Roads area. Energizing the party’s base there, she said, could be key to holding the House of Delegates this year. Though she’d love to “break the glass ceiling” and be the first woman elected as lieutenant governor, McClellan said, “I want

“I think diversity of experience, diversity of background, diversity of geography all should be taken into consideration,” she said.

Levine, D-Alexandria, a former radio and TV pundit who has served in the House since 2016, would be the first openly LGBTQ person in statewide office.

Though two Black men have served as lieutenant governor before, both Perryman and Warren would also ensure at least one Black candidate on the Democrats’ 2021 ticket.

In an interview, Perryman said he thinks it’s premature to call any candidate a frontrunner given the number of undecided voters.

“They don’t know Sam Rasoul, Mark Levine, me. They don’t know anyone,” Perryman said. “They’re just sort of going about their lives trying to get by.”

Perryman, who has endorsements from most of the county board in vote-rich Fairfax, said he doubts Democratic leaders’ embrace of Ayala will have a major impact.

“Everyone I think saw clearly that it was an attempt to prop up a candidate and pick favorites in this race,” Perryman said. “And I don’t think there’s an appetite for that.”

May 12, 2021 • 5

P.T. Hoffsteader, Esq.

www.LEGACYnewspaper.com

Housing discrimination Attorney General [Mark] Herring and partners in the housing industry are launching a new tool that will reduce housing discrimination and increase housing stability and options for Virginians with previous nonviolent convictions. Stable housing is a critical component to helping a person rebuild their life, provide for themselves and their families, and contribute back to their community in a meaningful way.

There are not enough providers available that are both affordable and that have adopted a policy like this to be more inclusive of people who have past justice involvement who have, by standards of law, been rehabilitated.

We trust that our judges and juries are put in place to make decisions about what is sufficient punishment for a crime then we turn around, as a society, and place another barrier in the face of an individual who is working hard to get back on track, in the form of a look back period that allows for the public/private sectors to deny individuals housing, employment, education, social services benefits, even the ability to be a school chaperone for their children.

If we release over 90 percent of individuals back into society following a period of incarceration that the courts determined was sufficient, it is hypocritical, at best, to say a person is not fit to pay their hard-earned money for a safe and stable place to live for themselves and their families. Children suffer the most from the restrictive practices that most housing providers impose on people with past criminal convictions.

Sheba Williams, Nolef Turns, Inc.

(from page 4) Depression. The government thought it had to step in to establish an absolute bottom for workers.

You can understand why: Some businesses won’t pay any amount except what they’re mandated to do.

Forbes.com noted recently that “the pace of wage growth started slowing after 1968, and the minimum wage stopped rising with inflation.”

A recent report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said if the federal minimum wage rose to $15 an hour by 2025, as many Democrats prefer, 1.4 million workers could lose their jobs. On the flip side, the number of people in poverty would be reduced by nearly one million.

There was also this comment from an official with the Virginia chapter of the National Federation for Independent Businesses: “When you raise that floor — it puts a lot of pressure for you to raise it for all your employees.”

Well, yeah. That should be the goal for employers who want to hold on to valuable employees. Their wages shouldn’t be eaten up by inflation every year.

Too many Americans work for pay that rivals a state of penury. The government and business owners should help ensure that folks who want to feed and house their family can do so.

It took way too long for legislators to raise Virginia’s minimum wage.

Any burger-flipper knows that.

6 • May 12, 2021

The LEGACY

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC OF AN APPLICATION BY VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY FOR A 2021 TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF ITS BASE RATES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS PURSUANT TO § 56-585.1 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA CASE NO. PUR-2021-00058 • Virginia Electric and Power Company (“Dominion”) has filed its 2021 triennial review of its base rates, terms and conditions pursuant to § 56-585.1 of the Code of Virginia.

• While Dominion does not request an overall increase or decrease in revenues, it does propose a revenue neutral reallocation of revenues between the distribution and generation function of base rates.

According to Dominion, the requested revenue reallocation would decrease the bill of a residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt hours per month by $0.18. Retail choice customers, as well as customers taking service under Dominion’s market-based rate schedules, would receive an increase in base distribution revenues but would not receive a decrease in base generation charges.

• Due to the ongoing public health emergency related to the spread of the coronavirus, or COVID-19, the State Corporation Commission (“Commission”) will hold a telephonic hearing in this case on September 14, 2021, at 10 a.m., for the receipt of public witness testimony.

• An evidentiary hearing will be held on September 20, 2021, at 10 a.m., either in the Commission’s second floor courtroom located in the Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, or by electronic means. Further details on this hearing will be provided by subsequent Commission Order.

• Further information about this case is available on the SCC website at: scc.virginia.gov/pages/Case-Information.

On March 31, 2021, Virginia Electric and Power Company (“Dominion” or “Company”) filed an application (“Application”) with the State Corporation Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to § 56-585.1 A of the Code of Virginia (“Code”) and the Commission’s Rules Governing Utility Rate Applications and Annual Informational Filings of Investor-Owned Electric Utilities, for a triennial review of the Company’s rates, terms and conditions for the provision of generation, distribution and transmission services.

According to the Company, its Application presents three principal issues for the Commission’s determination: (i) review of the Company’s cost of service and earnings during the four successive 12-month periods ending December 31, 2020 (“Triennial Review Period”) and a finding of whether there are any past earnings available for reinvestment or customer bill credits; (ii) a determination of whether rates for generation and distribution services should remain stable for the upcoming triennial review period or change, taking into account earnings test results, the Company’s level of investment in qualifying projects, the statutory prohibition on a rate increase in this case under Code § 56-585.1 A 8 (“Subsection A 8”), and the present functional alignment of these rates; and (iii) a determination of the Company’s prospective fair rate of return on common equity (“ROE”) in accordance with Code § 56-585.1 A 2.

Earnings Review Dominion states that, for the combined Triennial Review Period, the Company earned a 10.85% ROE on its generation and distribution operations on a Virginia jurisdictional basis, relative to the allowed ROE of 9.2% approved by the Commission in Case No. PUR-2019-00050. The Company calculates $26 million of revenues available for customer credit reinvestment offsets (“CCROs”) or customer bill credits after consideration of certain outstanding customer balances required to be forgiven pursuant to recent legislative enactments. The Application states that Dominion elects, pursuant to Subsection A 8, to reinvest those revenues in the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind demonstration project (“CVOW”). The Company states this will result in $26 million of the CVOW investment being recovered and written off the Company’s accounting books with no further customer contribution to these amounts going forward. In the event the Commission reaches a different determination as to the earnings test results and calculates a higher level of available earnings, the Company states that it elects to apply offsetting investments in CVOW equal to such available earnings, and then to the extent necessary, to apply offsetting investments in the customer information platform and in advanced metering infrastructure (“AMI”) equal to such remaining available earnings, up to the Company’s total eligible Virginia jurisdictional CCRO investments of $309 million.

Based on its financial results, Dominion states that its base rates will remain stable until at least the end of the next triennial review in 2024 because the law precludes an increase and the Company’s aggregate approved CCRO investments over the Triennial Review Period exceed earnings available for sharing from that period.

ROE The Company requests the Commission approve a 10.80% authorized ROE to be applied prospectively to its generation and distribution services.

Dominion asserts that its current cost of equity falls within a range of 10.50% to 11.50%, and the requested 10.8% falls below the midpoint of the range. The Application states that the requested ROE also falls within the lower boundaries of the Company’s calculation of the prescribed statutory peer group range of 10.33% to 11.83%. The Company asserts that it forecasts capital investment exceeding $28 billion over the next five years, $23 billion of which will be used to support investment such as customer growth, solar build out,

storage deployment, nuclear subsequent license renewal, and the first utility scale off-shore wind project built in federal waters. Further, the Company states that its need and ability to undertake these substantial investments is directly related to the determination of an adequate and reasonable ROE in this case. Longer term, the Company states it anticipates investments related to compliance with the Virginia Clean Economy Act alone may approach $40 billion over the next 15 years.

Revenue Apportionment and Rate Design Although the Company does not propose an increase or decrease to overall revenues, the Company proposes to re-balance the rates of return between the generation and distribution functions by a revenue neutral transfer of $330 million between those functions. Dominion states this transfer is needed to mitigate cost shifting between bundled service customers and retail choice customers. According to the Company, presently, base distribution rates are not sufficient to recover distribution costs, meaning that retail choice customers are not paying rates that result in revenues sufficient to recover the distribution costs incurred to serve them. The Company further states that revenue changes are allocated to the customer classes with the goal of moving each class closer to parity. While revenue neutral to the Company, this transfer may not be neutral to all customers on their bills, and could result in: (i) an increase, (ii) a decrease, or (iii) no change to the customer’s bills. Based on the Company’s analysis, its re-balancing proposal and revenue apportionment proposal would result in an $0.18 reduction in the monthly bill of a residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt hours per month. If approved, retail choice customers, as well as customers taking service under the Company’s market-based rate schedules (“market-based rate customers”), will receive an increase in base distribution revenue allocation, but will not receive a decrease in base generation charges, as retail choice customers do not take generation service from the Company and the market-based rate customers take service at market-based rates for generation service.

The Company proposes that the revised tariffs become effective for usage on and after the first day of the month that is no more than 60 days after the date of the Commission’s Final Order in the proceeding but no earlier than January 1, 2022.

AMI As part of this proceeding, the Company states it is requesting a Commission determination that its investments in AMI from 2017 to 2020, including 310,000 smart meters and associated infrastructure, are reasonable and prudent. In connection with AMI, the Company is also proposing a change to its tariff regarding the smart meter opt-out policy and associated fees. Currently, residential customer accounts in good standing may opt-out of smart meter installation upon request and at no expense. The Company’s new policy would continue to permit accounts in good standing to opt-out, but would impose a onetime initial fee of $52.24, and an ongoing monthly fee of $36.19, which the Company states are intended to recover the incremental costs of a customer opting-out of smart meter installation. Customers that have opted-out of a smart meter in the past would not be subject to the one-time initial fee of $52.24, but would be required to either opt-in to a smart meter at no charge or become subject to the ongoing monthly fee of $36.19. Customers receiving electric service on any time-varying or demand rate and customers who generate electricity are ineligible to opt-out of smart meter installation because detailed energy usage data is required to bill these customers.

Other Tariff Changes The Company proposes to update the basic customer charge in Residential Rate Schedule 1 from $6.58 to $8.53. In addition, the Company proposes changes to its existing tariffs that include the following: (i) withdraw Rate Schedule CS – Curtailable Service, Rate Schedule SG – Standby Generator, and Rider J – Interruptible Electric Water Heating Service Residential Customers; (ii) add clarifying language to certain tariffs to recognize the applicability of demand-based rates in distribution-related riders; (iii) modify the language in existing tariffs to address the applicability of non-bypassable charges; (iv) modify restrictive tariff language from Rate Schedule 24 – Outdoor Lighting Service Solid State Outdoor Lighting; (v) change the term of contract for Rider EDR – Economic Development Rate; (vi) modify certain language in Rate Schedule 10 – Large General Service; (vii) modify the determination of distribution demand tariff language in certain rate schedules; (viii) include standby charges in Rate Schedule 1S applicable to eligible residential customers with installed capacity of more than 15 kilowatts; (ix) modify Rider REC – Renewable Energy Certificate Purchase Program to reflect updated renewable energy certificate sources and pricing; and (x) update Rider D – Tax Effect Recovery to reflect the proposed changes in this proceeding. The Company is also proposing changes to the process whereby contract minimums are established for customer billing purposes and revisions to the Company’s Commission-approved Line Extension Plan.

The foregoing is not an exhaustive list of all the proposals contained in the Company’s Application. Interested persons are encouraged to review Dominion’s Application and supporting documents in full for details about these and other proposals.

TAKE NOTICE that the Commission may apportion revenues among customer classes and/or design rates in a manner differing from that shown in the Application and supporting documents and thus may adopt rates

that differ from those appearing in the Company’s Application and supporting documents.

The Commission entered an Order for Notice and Hearing that, among other things, scheduled public hearings on Dominion’s Application. On September 14, 2021, at 10 a.m., the Commission will hold a telephonic hearing for the purpose of receiving the testimony of public witnesses, with no public witness present in the Commission’s courtroom. On or before September 10, 2021, any person desiring to offer testimony as a public witness shall provide to the Commission (a) your name, and (b) the telephone number that you wish the Commission to call during the hearing to receive your testimony.

This information may be provided to the Commission in three ways: (i) by filling out a form on the Commission’s website at scc.virginia.gov/pages/ Webcasting; (ii) by completing and emailing the PDF version of this form to SCCInfo@scc.virginia.gov; or (iii) by calling (804) 371-9141. This public witness hearing will be webcast at scc.virginia.gov/pages/Webcasting.

On September 20, 2021, at 10 a.m., either in the Commission’s second floor courtroom located in the Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, or by electronic means, the Commission will convene a hearing to receive testimony and evidence offered by the Company, any respondents, and the Commission’s Staff on the Company’s Application. Further details on this hearing will be provided by subsequent Commission Order.

The Commission has taken judicial notice of the ongoing public health emergency related to the spread of the coronavirus, or COVID-19, and the declarations of emergency issued at both the state and federal levels. In accordance therewith, all pleadings, briefs, or other documents required to be served in this matter should be submitted electronically to the extent authorized by 5 VAC 5-20-150, Copies and format, of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules of Practice”). Confidential and Extraordinarily Sensitive Information shall not be submitted electronically and should comply with 5 VAC 5-20-170, Confidential information, of the Rules of Practice. For the duration of the COVID-19 emergency, any person seeking to hand deliver and physically file or submit any pleading or other document shall contact the Clerk’s Office Document Control Center at (804) 371-9838 to arrange the delivery.

Pursuant to 5 VAC 5-20-140, Filing and service, of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, the Commission has directed that service on parties and the Commission’s Staff in this matter shall be accomplished by electronic means.

Please refer to the Commission’s Order for Notice and Hearing for further instructions concerning Confidential or Extraordinarily Sensitive Information.

An electronic copy of the public version of the Company’s Application may be obtained by submitting a written request to counsel for the Company, Elaine S. Ryan, Esquire, McGuireWoods LLP, Gateway Plaza, 800 East Canal Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, or eryan@mcguirewoods.com.

On or before September 14, 2021, any interested person may file comments on the Application by following the instructions on the Commission’s website: scc.virginia.gov/casecomments/Submit-Public-Comments. All comments shall refer to Case No. PUR-2021-00058.

On or before June 23, 2021, any person or entity wishing to participate as a respondent in this proceeding may do so by filing a notice of participation at scc.virginia.gov/clk/efiling. Such notice of participation shall include the email addresses of such parties or their counsel. The respondent simultaneously shall serve a copy of the notice of participation on counsel to the Company. Pursuant to 5 VAC 520-80 B, Participation as a respondent, of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, any notice of participation shall set forth: (i) a precise statement of the interest of the respondent; (ii) a statement of the specific action sought to the extent then known; and (iii) the factual and legal basis for the action. Any organization, corporation, or government body participating as a respondent must be represented by counsel as required by 5 VAC 5-20-30, Counsel, of the Rules of Practice. All filings shall refer to Case No. PUR-2021-00058.

On or before July 30, 2021, each respondent may file with the Clerk of the Commission at scc.virginia.gov/clk/efiling and serve on the Commission Staff, the Company, and all other respondents, any testimony and exhibits by which the respondent expects to establish its case, and each witness’s testimony shall include a summary not to exceed two pages. In all filings, respondents shall comply with the Commission’s Rules of Practice, including 5 VAC 520140, Filing and service, and 5 VAC 520240, Prepared testimony and exhibits. All filings shall refer to Case No. PUR-2021-00058.

Any documents filed in paper form with the Office of the Clerk of the Commission in this docket may use both sides of the paper. In all other respects, except as modified by the Commission’s Order for Notice and Hearing, all filings shall comply fully with the requirements of 5 VAC 5-20-150, Copies and format, of the Commission’s Rules of Practice.

The public version of the Company’s Application and other documents filed in this case, the Commission’s Rules of Practice and the Commission’s Order for Notice and Hearing may be viewed at: scc.virginia.gov/pages/Case-Information.

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY d/b/a DOMINION ENERGY VIRGINIA

May 12, 2021• 7

www.LEGACYnewspaper.com

Classifieds

AUCTIONS, LEGAL, EMPLOYMENT, FOR SALE, SERVICES

Resource Information Help for the Disadvantaged and Disenfranchised (RIHD) www.rihd.org (804) 426-4426 P.O. Box 55 Highland Springs, Virginia 23075 (804) 426-4426

Serving Richmond & Hampton Roads 409 E. Main St. #4 (mailing) • 105 1/2 E. Clay St. (office) Richmond, VA 23219 804-644-1550 (office) • 800-783-8062 (fax) ads@legacynewspaper.com

Ad Size 3.4 inches - 1 column(s) X 1.7 inches) 1 Issue - $37.40

Rate: $11 per column inch

Includes Internet placement

Thank you for your interest in applying for opportunities with The City of Richmond.

To see what opportunities are available, please refer to our website at www.richmondgov.com.

EOE M/F/D/V

Please review the proof, make any needed changes and return by fax or e-mail.

If your response is not received by deadline, your ad may not be inserted.

Ok X_________________________________________ Ok with changes X _____________________________ REMINDER: Deadline is Fridays @ 5 p.m.

8 • May 12, 2021

The LEGACY