Politics Bureaucracy and Justice Volume 5 • Issue 1 • 2016 West Texas A&M University PB&J | Editorial Board Politics, Bureaucracy, and Justice faculty editors & advisors Anand Bertrand Commissiong editorial board John David Rausch Jr. Xiangyu Li typesetting Anand Bertrand Commissiong Copyright © 2016 by the Department of Political Science and Criminal Justice at West Tex- as A&M University. PB&J: Politics, Bureaucracy, and Justice (issn 2151-4313) is a biannual publication of the Department of Political Science and Criminal Justice at West Texas A&M University. It is edited by students in the department with the advice of faculty members. Submissions are welcome from across the university and the larger community of research- ers on subjects that pertain to the journal’s three focus areas. PB&J follows a blind submis- sions process and uses the American Psychological Association style for citations and for- matting. Correspondence and submissions may be sent to [email protected]. Submission requirements are available at the journal’s website: http://wtamu.edu/pbj Cover image: PPHM Face (detail). © Anand Bertrand Commissiong. PB&J | Contents • volume 5, issue 1 student research 1 Community Shared Solar in Virginia: Political and Institutional Barriers and Possibilities Gilbert Michaud faculty & student research 16 Students’ Opinions about Concealed Firearms on University Campuses Sharon D. Eaves Mark A. Shoemaker Alexander W. Griego faculty research 27 The Dream Team, Texas Democrats, and Turnout: A County-level Analysis of the 2002 Elections in Texas Reed L. Welch John David Rausch Jr. West Texas A&M University • Department of Political Science and Criminal Justice Community Shared Solar in Virginia: Political and Institutional Barriers and Possibilities Gilbert Michaud, Ohio University abstract: Solar photovoltaic (PV) energy has provoked intense policy debate at the state level in the United States. Electric util- ity providers and other interests have fought to scale back or cut favorable state policies as grid-connected solar PV installations have increased. One innovative approach to dealing with these challenges is to permit community net energy metering (NEM) or “shared solar” that allows multiple electric utility customers to share the costs and benefits of ownership in a local solar PV facility. This has stimulated the development of off-site shared solar arrays, or solar gardens, and increased access to PV technology. In Virginia, how- ever, no rules exist that require electric utilities to permit community shared solar through NEM. This article utilizes the punctuated equilibrium theory (PET) framework and a historical institutionalism methodology to examine the political forces that shape state policy and to analyze why Virginia has dismissed community solar legislation multiple times. Such an approach is useful in under- standing how other historically laggard states may adopt community shared solar legislation in the future. Introduction without having to install a system on their own resi- dential or commercial property” (National Renewable Community shared solar is generally defined as projects Energy Laboratory, 2015, para. 1). This differentiates it “with multiple individual owners living in geographic from other shared-type solar approaches such as com- proximity to [a] solar project, and sharing the costs and munity group purchasing, on-site shared solar like solar benefits of ownership of the solar project” (Farrell, 2010, PV on a multi-unit building, or community-driven finan- p. 2). Also referred to as “solar farms” or “solar gardens,” cial models such as “Solarize” programs. The article looks these installations are gaining popularity as consumers’ at the political processes and forces that shape commu- desire to lower their energy costs and to reduce their car- nity shared solar using Baumgartner and Jones’ (1993) bon footprint grow. This article examines the forces that punctuated equilibrium theory (PET), as this framework shape state solar policy in Virginia and why the legisla- illuminates the determinants of policy change and stabil- ture has failed to pass laws that would create community ity. The following section reviews the current status of shared solar energy. Virginia serves as a case study proxy community shared solar policies throughout the United for other laggard states without community shared solar States in general and Virginia in particular; following policy that make slow progress or are reluctant to adopt that, the article examines results from prior research on new policies. No previous literature has addressed com- these policies. The article then discusses the methodol- munity solar mechanisms in the regulatory context of ogy and results from the subsequent analysis, reflecting Virginia specifically. Hence, further research is needed on policy implications for Virginia and other states look- into the barriers and possibilities for community shared ing to adopt community shared solar legislation. solar in order to determine the best path(s) forward given Virginia’s unique regulatory landscape. The main research questions of this study seek to determine what Background forces shape state-level solar policy in Virginia, and why community shared solar legislation has not passed de- Though oil and gas energy resources continue to domi- spite multiple attempts. This approach is useful in under- nate in today’s industrialized world, to an extent their im- standing how other historically laggard states may adopt portance is already declining (Burkett, 2011). With the community shared solar legislation in the future. overall rising cost of energy, governments increasingly This research focuses on off-site shared solar that place greater emphasis on conservation and the pursuit allows “customers [to] enjoy advantages of solar energy of alternative energy sources such as wind, biomass, and PB&J: Politics, Bureaucracy, and Justice vol. 5 no. 1 wtamu.edu/pbj • 1 Community Shared Solar in Virginia: Political and Institutional Barriers and Possibilities solar photovoltaics (PVs). Solar PV systems are one of DPV systems to sell excess electricity generated back to the most practical ways for businesses and homeowners their electric utilities (Inskeep, Kennerly, & Proudlove, alike to capture solar energy and provide electricity to 2015). However, such legislation has not emerged with- a building. Reports indicate that solar PV deployment out debate. Certain non-governmental organizations in the United States has incresed significantly in recent have pushed for increased infiltration of solar as this of- years. Solar PV made up roughly 40% of all new installed ten aligns with their environmental sensitivity mission electric capacity in 2014, outpacing all other genera- statements. Solar firms that manufacture and install sys- tion sources such as coal, natural gas, wind, etc. (Solar tems hold a largely parallel vision and they desire contin- Energy Industries Association, 2015). Solar PV deploy- ued interest in DPV to facilitate revenue generation. Yet, ment grew particularly for commercial and residential or large, investor-owned utilities (IOUs) are often reluctant non-utility PV systems, also known as “distributed PV” to see legislation that encourages DPV as it can undercut (DPV).1 Since 2010, installed U.S. solar PV capacity in- their revenues, among other reasons. Ultimately, the po- creased 418%, with over half of this increase from DPV litical environment is one where key players in this policy alone (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2014). arena are all pursuing their own, concentrated interests. In 2013, grid-connected DPV reached nearly 6,000 MW Beyond traditional NEM arrangements, one noted of total installed solar PV capacity (U.S. Energy Informa- provision that Virginia does not allow is the ability for tion Administration, 2014), and this number continues customers to utilize a community NEM arrangement. to grow each year. Community NEM allows for the establishment of com- Virginia had 13.57 MW of installed net-metered munity shared solar gardens, as well as the remunerations DPV capacity as of December 2014 (State Corporation of a solar project to be realized by multiple users in pro- Commission, 2014b). This is enough to power well over portion to their respective ownership stake in the shared 1,000 homes. According to December 2015 data, this fig- system. It also allows for increased access to solar PV ure increased to 21.86 MW. However, this capacity is far technology, particularly for those who could not house less than the smaller, adjoining state of Maryland, which such systems on their home or business. With these im- had 92 MW of net-metered DPV capacity at the end of plications of community shared solar, examining why 2014 (Maryland Energy Administration, 2014). Dif- Virginia does not allow community NEM and shared so- ferences in state policy to encourage DPV may explain lar despite several attempts to pass such legislation is of this disparity in installed capacity. For unlike Virginia, significant interest. Maryland has a mandatory Renewable Portfolio Stan- dard (RPS) requiring electric utility providers to deliver a proportion of their power from renewable sources like Literature Review solar. Maryland also has a superior net energy metering (NEM) policy compared to Virginia, and offers state tax Net energy metering allows electric utility customers credits for DPV investment. with PV systems connected to the electricity grid to re- States such as California,