byline: Stephen Nielsen

RICHMOND – The World Road Cycling Championships, one of the most prestigious international competitions for bicyclists, is coming to Richmond in two years, giving a healthy boost to the city’s image and tourist industry.

The Worlds, as it’s called, is a nine-day event consisting of 12 races for both men and women. It will include 1,500 top athletes, an expected half million spectators and a global TV audience of roughly 300 million. The Worlds will be held in Richmond in September 2015 – only the second time the races have come to the U.S.

“It’s a unique opportunity for the Richmond region to be spotlighted,” said Lee Kallman, director of marketing and communication for Richmond 2015, the event’s organizing body.

“And the nature of cycling TV is there’s a lot of tourism stuff built in. There’s a lot of time where announcers can talk about landmarks and other interesting things that the race is going through.”

While Richmond has a growing tourism industry, the Worlds gives the city a chance to be seen in a new light. The exposure could do a lot for tourism over the long term.

“People know about Richmond and its history,” Kallman said. “That’s not something we have to sell them on, necessarily.” Instead, the Worlds will be a chance for people from all over the world to experience the metro area’s restaurants, wineries, nightlife and culture.

“Historically, Richmond is thought of as kind of a Southern, sleepy, Civil War town,” Kallman said. “A global event helps drive those perceptions in a really positive way.”

The event will enhance not only perceptions but also the local economy. The Richmond 2015 group last year commissioned a study of the financial benefits of the Worlds. It found that the event will generate almost $160 million in direct and indirect spending throughout the state.

The chance to host the Worlds is an honor in itself.

“It’s been an event that’s traditionally very European-centric, as a lot of things in the sport of cycling have been,” Kallman said. For example, the Worlds was held in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2011, and in the Netherlands the following year. The event will be held in Florence, Italy, this September and in Ponferrada, Spain, in 2014.

It wasn’t until the late 2000s that the Union Cycliste Internationale, a global governing body for the sport, decided to push globalization and require the Worlds be held outside Europe every five years.

“At the time, there was a group in Richmond that had some experience in the cycling world and noticed the opportunity that the Worlds presented,” Kallman said. “They got the ball rolling, getting the city behind it and finding some initial funding for the project.”

In December 2010, local supporters announced that Richmond would officially bid for the 2015 World Championships. There was intense competition, but at the 2011 Worlds, officials announced that Richmond won the bid over the Arabian country of Oman and Quebec, Canada.

Kallman believes Richmond got the nod for a couple of reasons:

• “When you look at the cities, for the most part they don’t look to have it in huge, huge cities,” Kallman said. “An event like this, the arena is the streets. It’s tough to shut down the inner city of Manhattan or L.A. for the amount of time that the World Championships covers.”

• Virginia’s capital city also is convenient for prospective spectators. It’s within half a day’s drive from half the U.S. population.

• Richmond has a strong cycling culture, meaning the event will be locally popular.

Now preparations for the event are underway. It will cost $21 million to host the Worlds. So far, Richmond 2015 has raised more than $11 million, largely from Virginia-based companies such as Altria, CarMax and Genworth. Individuals such as Bill and Alice Goodwin and Jim and Bobbi Ukrop also contributed.

Kallman said the next step is to broaden the fundraising.

“The last few months, we’ve really made a transition to dialogue with national and international brands about the opportunity that the World Championships presents,” Kallman said. “We got a great response there.”

After the races, officials hope Richmond will remain a spot internationally recognized by cyclists. It’s definitely true that many people who had never heard of Richmond before have now, Kallman said.

“Richmond is on their radar now.”

RICHMOND – Virginia is creating a new agency to support development of nuclear power – a move that has upset environmentalists and open-government advocates, because the entity won’t have to comply with the state’s Freedom of Information Act and other laws.

For the past year or so, companies that work with nuclear energy have been speaking with experts at Virginia universities with nuclear engineering programs and at industry-related nonprofit groups. The goal was to foster collaboration among nuclear-energy advocates, according to Delegate T. Scott Garrett, R-Lynchburg.

In January, Garrett introduced House Bill 1790, which sought to create the Virginia Nuclear Energy Consortium Authority. Sen. Jeffrey McWaters, R-Virginia Beach, sponsored companion legislation – Senate Bill 1138 – in his chamber. Both bills were passed by the General Assembly and signed into law by Gov. Bob McDonnell.

Under the new law, the authority will create a nonprofit corporation, the Virginia Nuclear Energy Consortium, which will consist of experts from the private sector, nonprofits and higher education. The consortium will collaborate on workforce development, educational opportunities, research opportunities and other issues concerning nuclear energy.

“The consortium is really to help create a platform to facilitate these folks,” Garrett said. “What paths they choose is really going to be up to them.”

A 17-member board will run the authority. It will include representatives of:

• The state Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy

• The Virginia Economic Development Partnership

• The Virginia Community College System

• Virginia Commonwealth University, the University of Virginia, Virginia Tech and George Mason University – the four state universities with nuclear engineering programs

• Two other institutions of higher education, including at least one private school

• A nuclear energy-related nonprofit

• A Virginia-based federal research laboratory

In addition, the governor will appoint “six individuals, each to represent a single business entity located in the Commonwealth that is engaged in activities directly related to the nuclear energy industry.”

By Jan. 1, the authority will create the Virginia Nuclear Energy Consortium. By law, the consortium will seek to make Virginia “a leader in nuclear energy”; will serve as “an interdisciplinary study, research, and information resource for the Commonwealth on nuclear energy issues”; and will raise money for the authority from businesses and foundations.

The authority is a state government agency; as such, it will be subject to Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act – meaning its meetings and records will be open to the public. But the consortium won’t be a government agency – so it won’t be subject to FOIA. The consortium’s executive director and other employees also will be exempt from the State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act and other laws governing public employees.

“The bill is clear: FOIA will not apply to the consortium,” said Megan Rhyne, executive director of the Virginia Coalition for Open Government. The coalition promotes transparency in government at the state and local levels.

According to Rhyne, legislators feared that organizations wouldn’t be willing to participate in the consortium if its meetings were public. They also worried about the possible release of trade secrets from the nuclear energy industry if the consortium were subject to FOIA.

“The release of trade secret information is certainly reasonable, and there are exemptions within FOIA to deal with that,” Rhyne said. “They can certainly protect that information without exempting the entire body from FOIA.”

Rhyne said the new law sets a bad precedent by exempting a government-affiliated agency, using public funds, from FOIA, which is sometimes called the sunshine law.

“They are spending taxpayer dollars and advising a public body, and those kinds of organizations and entities need to be subject to sunshine,” Rhyne said.

Proponents of the nuclear energy consortium say the group needs more latitude than other government agencies to pursue Gov. McDonnell’s energy goals.

“One of his primary objectives was to reaffirm that the Commonwealth of Virginia will be the energy capital of the East Coast,” Garrett said. “Nuclear is a key component of that, as is coal, as is renewables. I think all of that packaged together comes under the umbrella of energy opportunities.”

He noted that Virginia also has an offshore wind authority and consortium. (The 2010 legislation creating the Virginia Offshore Wind Development Authority makes the agency subject of FOIA but says “personal and financial information” about offshore wind energy projects must be kept confidential.)

Nuclear energy provides roughly 40 percent of the electricity produced by Dominion Virginia Power, the state’s leading utility. The power stations in Surry and North Anna combined provide energy for about 870,000 households, according to Richard Zuercher, a Dominion spokesman. He said that, while the company was not directly involved in the formation of the authority, Dominion supported the plan.

Other organizations weren’t as supportive.

“It’s really a matter of opinion if you think we need nuclear in Virginia,” said Erica Gray, who organized the Richmond chapter of Nuclear Free Virginia. “Obviously we didn’t for I don’t know how many months when our earthquake knocked North Anna offline.”

Because of the earthquake on Aug. 23, 2011, the two nuclear reactors at North Anna Power Station automatically shut down. The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission allowed Dominion to restart the station less than three months later.

“There’s been several studies out that have shown we can get by and meet our energy needs with wind, solar and energy efficiency,” said Glen Besa, senior director of the Sierra Club’s Virginia chapter. He said creating an agency to examine nuclear energy detracts from environmentally-friendly alternatives.

But Zuercher said protecting the environment is a reason to support nuclear energy.

“There’s a lot of attention placed on climate change and reducing CO2 emissions,” Zuercher said. “You’re not going to do that without nuclear energy.” CO2 is a by-product of coal, still a major source of electricity in Virginia.

However, it can’t be denied that nuclear power stations produce hazardous waste and that disposing of it is problematic.

“If they want to study anything, they ought to figure out what to do with the nuclear waste,” Besa said. He described the Surry and North Anna stations as “high level” nuclear waste dumps.

Gray agreed: “We need to invest renewable energy – things that don’t produce toxic waste that we have nowhere to put.”

Zuercher said nuclear-power opponents have complicated the waste disposal issue.

“Every nuclear site stores spent nuclear fuel on site,” Zuercher said. That is because the U.S. Department of Energy still hasn’t designated a long-term site – because of opposition from environmental groups.

“They don’t want it to go anywhere, and they don’t want it to be on the site,” Zuercher said. “In general, opponents of nuclear energy don’t want to solve the problem but push it off on future generations.”

Photo courtesy Dominion Virginia Power.

RICHMOND – A divided Virginia Senate on Saturday passed Gov. Bob McDonnell’s signature issue of the 2013 legislative session – a bill to overhaul the state’s system for funding transportation.

Just hours before the session’s end, the Senate voted 25-15 for House Bill 2313, which will raise about $880 million a year more for roads and mass transit by increasing sales taxes while lowering the fuels tax.

The debate over how to increase revenue continued right up to the vote.

“This isn’t any bill. This is the only bill,” said Senate Majority Leader Thomas Norment, R-Williamsburg. Supporters said it’s the only way to provide the revenue Virginia’s transportation system needs – and to ease traffic congestion in Northern Virginia and Tidewater.

Others disagreed.

“To me, the final bill represents bad economics and bad transportation policy,” said Sen. Adam Ebbin, D-Alexandria. He said the state should raise its gasoline tax to address the problems.

HB 2313, which was negotiated by a conference committee and approved 60-40 by the House on Friday, would:

• Eliminate the 17.5-cents-per-gallon gasoline tax that consumers pay at the pump. Instead, the state would impose a 3.5 percent tax on gasoline at the wholesale level. The wholesale tax on diesel fuel would be 6 percent.

• Increase Virginia’s sales tax from 5 percent to 5.3 percent.

• Raise the motor vehicle sales tax from 3 percent to 4.3 percent.

• Charge a $100 annual license tax for electric and alternative fuel vehicles.

• Allow a 0.7 percent sales tax increase in Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia to fund transportation projects there.

HB 2313 also would boost the proportion of the state’s general fund revenue dedicated to transportation from 0.5 percent to 0.675 percent. And it would prohibit tolls on Interstate 95 south of Fredericksburg without approval from the General Assembly.

“This is truly the best we’re going to get,” said Sen. Janet Howell, D-Fairfax.

Other senators echoed that sentiment.

“Do I feel like we have anyone in this body that can make a perfect plan? No,” said Sen. Charles Carrico, R-Galax. But he said the transportation plan was close enough and a product of a great deal of compromise between parties.

Still, a dozen Republican senators and three Democrats voted against the bill.

“I don’t agree with having different tax rates in different parts of the commonwealth,” said Sen. J. Chapman Petersen, D-Fairfax.

“Having a regional tax in Northern Virginia – that means my constituents are going to have a surcharge on all their consumer goods, just for living in that one part of the state. I don’t see the fairness in that, so I voted no.”

HB 2313 now goes to McDonnell for his signature.

In a press release, the governor said, “The annals of history will recognize this session as the year that vital transportation funding reforms, substantively ignored since 1986, were enacted to address the decades-old issues that have left Virginia unable to maintain our existing road, rail and transit infrastructure and unable to pay for needed new transportation services.”