Virginia PBR stakeholder group reviews statute, assigns assessment work as affordability emerges as top concern

Eileen Cole of the Great Plains Institute led a detailed reading of the joint resolutions that direct the State Corporation Commission to study performance‑based regulatory (PBR) tools and produce a report for the governor and General Assembly. The stakeholder process, run by the Virginia Department of Energy, will gather workshop feedback and written assessments to inform the SCC's study.

The meeting centered on two immediate tasks: clarifying what problems the PBR study should address and completing a regulator-assessment worksheet. Dan Crosscall of Current Energy Group described the worksheet as a tool to “diagnose the current system and identify those problems before jumping too fast to solutions,” and asked each organization to submit at least two completed assessments focused on a single statutory outcome (for example, affordability or reliability). Staff asked stakeholders who can to submit initial worksheets by March 6 so the results can be packaged before the next meeting, while acknowledging that a later deadline may be offered for organizations that need more time.

Stakeholders repeatedly identified customer affordability, reliability/resilience and bill transparency as top themes. Laura (Clean Virginia) said on the record that “rate adjustment clauses do not incentivize affordability,” arguing that pass-through trackers remove cost‑containment incentives and make bills harder for customers to understand. Multiple groups urged the project team and the SCC to analyze where existing mechanisms already embed PBR elements and whether those mechanisms perform as intended.

Breakout-room report-outs produced three clear cross-cutting requests: (1) a shared, prioritized set of performance goals (stakeholders noted the statute lists 14–15 performance areas and asked for help prioritizing them); (2) a spreadsheet or structured template that maps statutory performance areas to current code provisions, potential PBR tools, and where consensus exists; and (3) additional education so stakeholders can meaningfully compare PBR mechanisms (deeper dives on specific tools were scheduled for the next meeting).

The consultants leading the stakeholder work — Great Plains Institute and Current Energy Group — emphasized that the stakeholder report will feed, but not supplant, the SCC's statutory study. Brian Pratt of SCC staff said the department's stakeholder product will be a component of the SCC's study and that the extent to which the stakeholder process makes specific recommendations will depend on whether the group reaches consensus on particular changes.

As a practical matter, workshop participants ran a live test of the worksheet. Using 'affordability for customers' as the target outcome, the group assessed how particular mechanisms (for example, rate reviews, trackers and energy‑efficiency incentives) help or hinder that outcome and listed issues for attention. Participants raised recurring concerns: (a) many trackers are structured as true‑ups that keep utilities whole and therefore reduce incentives to contain costs; (b) bill complexity reduces customer ability to judge affordability; and (c) energy‑efficiency targets can be constructive when coupled with effective enforcement and transparent measurement, but participants noted some utilities are not on track to meet 2025 targets and asked that the study identify remedies.

Next steps: the project team will post slides, circulate an updated assessment template, solicit volunteers to present PBR proposals at meetings six and seven (late March/early April), and hold a deeper tool briefing (Regulatory Assistance Project and others) at the March 10 meeting. The public comment period on stakeholder materials remains open through early April.