Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Bloom Energy’ Category

Public Service Commission
Cannon Building
861 Silver Lake Blvd., Suite 100
Dover, DE 19904

RE: 3008 Rules and Procedures to Implement the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (Opened August 23, 2005), PSC Docket 56, published March 1, 2017

Please accept these comments in the matter of the adoption of rules and procedures to implement the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard Act, 26 DEL. C. §§ 351-363, as applied to Retail Electricity Suppliers.  We note this proposed regulation is appropriate in light of Superior Court ruling, C.A. N15A-12-002 AML, dated December 30, 2016, upholding the claim by the Delaware Public Advocate and the Caesar Rodney Institute the Public Service Commission (PSC) incorrectly delegated authority to write this regulation to the Division of Energy & Climate pursuant to the clear language in the Renewable Portfolio Standards Act, and remanding the issue to the PSC for proceedings in accordance with the Court’s decision.

We appreciate the care and thoughtful approach of the PSC Staff in drafting the regulation.  We especially support the affirmation legislative intent was to recognize there is unpriced value to the RPS by allowing a 3% electric rate premium, but did not require those externalities be calculated as an offset against the Cost Cap Calculation.  However, we do point out one issue requiring additional clarity.  We recommend the following additions (in Italics) to clarify the inclusion of REC and SREC Renewable Compliance Charges from Qualified Fuel Cell Providers.

3.2.21.1.1 The total cost of RECs retired to comply with the RPS, including that portion of the net Renewable Compliance Charge from Qualified Fuel Cell Providers used to meet REC requirements, plus       

3.2.21.1.3  The total cost of SRECs retired to comply with the RPS, including that portion of the net Renewable Compliance Charge from Qualified Fuel Cell Providers used to meet SREC requirements, plus           

3.2.21.3.2 The total cost of RECs retired to comply with the RPS, including that portion of the net Renewable Compliance Charge from Qualified Fuel Cell Providers used to meet REC requirements, plus

3.2.21.3.3 The total cost of SRECs retired to comply with the RPS, including that portion of the net Renewable Compliance Charge from Qualified Fuel Cell Providers used to meet SREC requirements, plus

3.2.21.4.2 The total cost of SRECs retired to comply with the RPS, including that portion of the net Renewable Compliance Charge from Qualified Fuel Cell Providers used to meet SREC requirements, plus

            While including the QFCP cost would seem to be self-evident, we note the Division of Energy & Climate has excluded these charges in past Cost Cap calculations.  The Division itself included the QFCP costs in the first three of four iterations of their proposed regulation “2102 Implementation of Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards Cost Cap Provisions”, now in the process of repeal.  The Division will be responsible for the actual calculation, and so needs a clear direction on including the QFCP charges.  We note the PSC regularly balances price, reliability, and environmental issues, while the Division of Energy & Climate is an advocate for renewable energy potentially biasing their regulatory process.  That is why writing the Cost Cap regulation was left to the PSC by the legislature.

The PSC should maintain consistency in its interpretation of the role of RECs from Qualified Fuel Cell Providers.  There are several precedents to consider.

  • The PSC approved the Fuel Cell Tariff in 2011. The Fuel Cell Act required the Commission to reject the tariff if the net levelized cost per month for the fuel cell project exceeded the net levelized cost of the highest current tariff, or the Bluewater Wind project.  The PSC Staff Consultant estimated the levelized cost of the Fuel Cell Tariff to be $1.34/month for the average residential customer compared to $2.27/month for Bluewater Wind.  Built into the assumptions was the Fuel Cell Act provision for energy production to offset the need for RECs and SRECs.  Without this offsetting value the cost of the Fuel Cell Project would have increased over $2.00 more a month, and would have exceeded the price cap requiring rejection of the Fuel Cell Tariff.  DNREC took this one step further and allowed each megawatt-hour of fuel cell generation to create two RECs, while an actual wind farm only creates one REC for each megawatt-hour of generation.  Clearly the REC value component influenced the PSC Tariff approval process.
  • The proposed regulation recognizes QFCP RECs in section 3.2.4 which spells out energy production from the QFCP can be used to fulfill the RPS requirements, and section 3.2.5 requires PJM-EIS GATS tracking similar to all other RECs and SRECs. The QFCP RECs are equivalent to any REC from any Eligible Energy Resource.
  • Every required annual report of RPS cost and the total Retail Cost of Electricity filed by Delmarva Power has included the QFCP cost without objection from the Division or the PSC Staff.
  • In PSC “Docket 13-250 Electric Bill Transparency”, the working group unanimously recommended, and the Commission ruled the Renewable Compliance Charge would be broken out on electric bills. It is now on each monthly bill and includes the QFCP REC cost.  How can the Commission explain to ratepayers any inconsistency of what they can see for themselves on an electric bill to what is used to determine whether the Cost Cap has been exceeded?
  • If the QFCP wasn’t supplying RECs, Delmarva would have had to purchase them under contract or on the spot market. We will shortly see the current contract cost for RECs when the Delmarva RFP solicitation for RECs is complete.  Clearly the QFCP RECs have a cost that adds to the Renewable Compliance Charge.  One could point out the QFCP RECs are expensive.  However, using information from the Delmarva 2014 IRP, page 73, Tables 8 and 9, we can calculate a forecasted cost for the current 2016 Compliance Year.  The costs are $68.14/REC from the QFCP, $33.73 /REC from three existing wind farm contracts, and $24.23/REC from the spot market.  The QFCP RECs are the most expensive but not extraordinarily so.  For example, SREC values vary from a high of $312 from the first residential procurement auction, to $217 from the Dover Sun Park, to $68 in the latest procurement auction, to $15 in the current Maryland spot market.  The Fuel Cell Tariff approval and construction of the generation facility was contemporaneous with the three existing wind farm contracts, and so are representative of a range of REC value at the time the Fuel Cell Tariff was approved.

In conclusion these precedents, and ratepayer expectations cry out for clarity on the fuel cell issue.  Please consider our clarifications to the proposed regulation to ensure the QFCP portion of the Renewable Compliance Charge is included in the RPS Cost Cap Calculation.

Sincerely,

David T. Stevenson
Director, Center for Energy Competitiveness
Caesar Rodney Institute
e-mail: DavidStevenson@CaesarRodney.org
Phone: 302-236-2050
Fax: 302-827-4558

Read Full Post »

You can make your voice heard right now at the Delaware Public Service Commission (PSC) to protect against future electric bill increases.

The PSC is considering a regulation on how to calculate the cost impact on electric bills of Delaware’s requirement that our electric suppliers purchase more expensive and unreliable wind and solar power every year.  In 2010 the legislature amended the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard Act (REPSA) to include a cost cap of 3% on electric bills. The legislature figured there was value in using renewable power, but it didn’t want to overburden ratepayers, many who are living paycheck to paycheck.  Thus, it wrote a cap into the law that said electric bills should never go up by more than 3 percent to buy renewables.  If the cap was exceeded, the requirement for more renewable power was to be frozen until costs came down.  In 2011, the legislature again amended REPSA to allow a portion of the cost of fuel cell generation that Delmarva is forced to buy (and for which ratepayers are forced to pay) to count as renewable energy so Delmarva would not have to buy as much wind and solar power.

Well, that cap was exceeded in 2013. Renewables now add about 9% to electric bills, or $100 a year to residential bills, but there is no freeze!  Some industrial customers are paying a job-killing half million to a million dollars a year.

The story of how a freeze was avoided should make your blood boil.  The legislature added the 3% cost cap in 2010 and told the PSC to draft a regulation governing the cost cap calculations, with DNREC’s Division of Energy & Climate (Division) performing the actual calculations.  Then, the two agencies would consult to determine whether a freeze was called for. This division of labor made sense.  The PSC regularly balances the competing objectives of price, reliability, and environmental concerns in approving utility rates.  The Division of Energy & Climate advocates for renewable energy, which could potentially bias its approach to a cost cap calculation regulation to avoid a freeze.

The PSC ducked its responsibility, impermissibly delegating the duty for drafting the cost cap regulation to the Division.  The Division took its sweet time finalizing the regulation (almost four years), until the end of 2015 — thus avoiding doing a calculation that would have led to a freeze.  Moreover, the Division’s final regulation twisted the calculation process to avoid a freeze.  First, it flatly ignored the cost of the Bloom Energy fuel cell project.  Look at your electric bill: you will see the Renewable Compliance Charge broken into the fuel cell cost (Delaware Qualified Fuel Cell) and the wind and solar cost separately.  Divide the charge by your total bill to see what percentage you are paying.  Even though the fuel cells are fueled by conventional natural gas, the legislature approved fuel cell generation counting against the RPS requirements at twice the rate of an actual wind farm!

Second, the Division attempted to calculate the value of unpriced externalities, such as the health impacts of less air pollution, and count those externalities as part of the cost of electric supply.  In doing so, it used outdated emissions data, outdated health impact values, and counted jobs created in the solar industry, while ignoring jobs lost because of higher electric rates.  After exaggerating the benefits, it wanted to allow another 3% price increase!

The REPSA requires that our electric suppliers purchase 25% of their power from renewable sources by 2025; the current year’s target is 14.5%.  The idea was to generate renewable power in-state.  Instead, we are only generating about 1% of the power we use from in-state solar projects.  The rest is coming from landfill gas and biomass projects that were in place before the REPSA became law, natural gas-fired fuel cells, and out-of-state windfarms that raise electric bills but create no Delaware jobs. The point is that for all its cost and effort, the REPSA isn’t even close to doing what it was supposed to – but it is increasing the amount that Delawareans pay for electricity.

The Delaware Public Advocate (DPA), a state agency tasked with advocating the lowest reasonable rates for regulated utility consumers, and CRI petitioned the PSC to do its job and issue regulations.  The PSC refused.  The DPA appealed the PSC’s order and won!

The PSC has now drafted proposed cost cap regulations.  To read them, go to http://regulations.delaware.gov/register/march2017/proposed/20%20DE%20Reg%20713%2003-01-17.htm .

Here’s where you come in.

The PSC did eliminate the use of externalities in the cost cap calculations.  However, the wording is not clear enough: the fuel cell costs are excluded from the cost cap calculation.

CRI thinks the cost cap calculations should take into account the cost to buy solar and wind power and the amount going toward Bloom energy fuel cells when calculating the total cost of REPSA compliance.

If you think so too, let the PSC know. Written public comments are due by Monday, April 24, and the PSC will conduct a public hearing at 1 PM, April 6.  Written comments may be sent to Joseph DeLosa, Public Service Commission, 861 Silver Lake Blvd., Cannon Building Suite 100, Dover, DE 19904, or by e-mail to joseph.delosa@state.de.us.  The hearing is at the same location.

We are encouraging submission of written comments to the PSC similar to the following with the subject line “Regulation Docket No. 56”: “We support the proposed regulation, but please add clarifying language to ensure that the net cost of Renewable Energy Credits from a Qualified Fuel Cell Provider shall be included in the RPS Cost Cap Calculation.”                            

The improved regulation will probably result in a freeze to the increasing requirement for wind and solar power.  It will keep the cost from rising further.  (Interestingly, the price of solar installations has fallen so far it is likely that new solar projects will still be built without the state mandate, as is happening at many locations across America now).

David T. Stevenson
Director, Center for Energy Competitiveness
Caesar Rodney Institute

 

Read Full Post »

Settlement stipulates that Delaware’s renewable energy program must even the playing field for out-of-state companies

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 21, 2015

 MEDIA CONTACT: Geoff Holtzman | geoff.holtzman@causeofaction.org | 703-405-3511

WASHINGTON – Today, Cause of Action is pleased to announce that a federal court in Delaware has approved a settlement agreement between our client, FuelCell Energy, Inc., and Delaware Governor Jack Markell and Delaware state utility officials regarding the state’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards Act (REPSA).

Under the terms of the settlement, Delaware’s Public Service Commission (DPSC) must now allow competition across state lines with respect to fuel cell manufacturers, in compliance with the commerce clause of the United States Constitution.

Cause of Action Executive Director Daniel Epstein issued the following statement:

“Today is a great day, not only for clean energy manufacturers, but for innovators and entrepreneurs everywhere who wish to compete on an even playing field. This settlement should send a message to government officials that fair interstate competition is a cornerstone of the U.S. Constitution. Cause of Action is proud to have played a role in reaching this agreement, and we will continue to fight hard in the name of economic fairness.”

BACKGROUND:

In a 2012 complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Connecticut-based FuelCell Energy alleged that it was disadvantaged by the DPSC‘s special tariff awarded under REPSA to an in-state energy manufacturer and the associated State financial support for establishing in-state manufacturing that was offered to only one select company by the Governor of Delaware, without any prior public notice or bidding process.

FuelCell Energy, a global fuel cell company that designs, manufactures, installs, operates and services efficient and affordable stationary fuel cell power plants, argued that Delaware’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards Act, which was amended in 2011, violated the commerce clause of the United States Constitution, which prohibits state laws that discriminate against out-of-state competition.

Under REPSA, the State of Delaware only allowed bids on a State fuel cell project from a fuel cell company that agreed to establish manufacturing in the State, and the State provided financial incentives to support construction of the manufacturing facility, resulting in a sole-source contract rather than a competitively bid contract.

In April 2014, the District Court permitted FuelCell Energy to proceed with its constitutional claim.

The settlement agreement that we are announcing today will level the playing field for all out-of-state fuel cell manufacturers wishing to compete for business in the state of Delaware. Prior to this settlement, out-of-state fuel cell power plant manufacturers were prohibited from bidding on REPSA-funded incentives for fuel cell power generation projects, a violation of constitutional prohibitions on state-legislated discrimination against out-of-state businesses.

Cause of Action is a non-profit, nonpartisan strategic oversight organization committed to ensuring that government decision-making is open, honest, and fair.

CRI’s views: Although CRI was not involved in this lawsuit, we were very much supportive of it. Bloom Energy is a perfect example of crony capitalism, where over half a billion taxpayer dollars were promised to a company whose technology was not only unproven to work, but actually was proven to be even more polluting than the alternative solution, which was to build more natural gas pipelines and transmission stations in Delaware. Bloom did not even have to go through a competitive process to obtain the grant; it was awarded to them.

We hope this lawsuit will serve as a notice to Delaware’s state government that crony capitalism is not the answer to providing clean, affordable energy to Delawareans. We should support proven, reliable methods such as natural gas and nuclear power to reduce our carbon emissions and keep electric rates affordable. For more information on our energy plan, visit caesarrodney.org and click on the Center for Energy Competitiveness tab under “issues”.

Read Full Post »

Happy Thanksgiving! We hope you have a happy and safe holiday.

For this week’s post we are going to respond to the post of blogger Lyman Stone, a grad student at George Washington University’s Elliott School. In his November 21 blogpost titled “North Dakota, Illinois, and Delaware: A Boom State, a Struggler, and a Winner”, he wrote about Delaware’s migration and why the state has had an overall increase in people from 2000-2010 (source: U.S. Census). His top four points and our response:

1. “Many of the people Delaware loses, as I’ve already shown, are richer people. That is to say, Delaware is exporting its richer people (many of them retirees) to states like Arizona, Florida, Virginia, and Texas. Meanwhile, it is inundated with floods of lower-income, somewhat less-educated individuals. Delaware’s in-migration includes very high rates of retiree migration and migration of the young.”

Delaware lost roughly $480 million in net wealth from 2000-2010, predominately from New Castle County (source irs.gov). Some of that wealth went across the border to Chester/Media, PA; many of the top 1% retired to Florida or Arizona, but many people did stay in Delaware and moved to Kent or Sussex Counties where property is even cheaper and cost of living is lower than New Castle County. Delaware’s low property taxes attract retirees mainly from DC, MD, NJ, and NY. Young people move to New Castle County for the corporate jobs. But Lyman is missing this point: Families with school-age children tend not to stay in Delaware. (see here and here). Unless the parents can afford a private school or get to a good charter school, the parents more often than not leave for PA. A graph within the presentations in the links shows a huge drop-off with parents with at least one child aged 5 or older leaving for places like Valley Forge or Media while parents with children 0-4 stay in Delaware. So it’s like “come when you’re young, leave when you have a family, return when you’re ready to retire”.

2. “Once again, like Illinois, Delaware has lots of high-traffic borders and nearby border metro areas, thus we can fruitfully look to policy variables as one part of the explanation. Delaware has income taxes at a similar rate to most of its regional peers (though much higher than Virginia’s) and is in the minority of states in that it still has an estate tax. In that regard, it is peculiar that so many retirees would choose it.

That is, until we recall Delaware’s three most salient tax features: it has no sales tax (thus reducing cost of living), among the lowest property taxes in the nation (reducing cost of living), and funds its infrastructure through tolls and user fees more than any other state (reducing burdens on people who drive less: young and old). Its taxes overwhelmingly fall on businesses, but it attracts businesses by offering highly favorable legal and regulatory conditions.”

Delaware has a gross-receipts tax, a tax on business revenue BEFORE profit and loss is considered. Only Virginia has both a gross receipts and income tax, both of those rates are lower there than Delaware. The result has been that Delaware has had more businesses closing than opening and we are 51st in the country in jobs created by existing firms (Source: deconfirst.com). This means no state or DC is worse than Delaware at getting businesses already here to hire more people. The state is very good at helping start-ups but not good at helping established businesses, especially medium-sized businesses.

Delaware’s Court of Chancery is known for its fairness, and incorporation laws are lax. This is favorable to larger businesses to want to headquarter here, which is why the Wilmington area has so many corporate offices with high-paying administrative jobs. This is a good thing for the state but again, this benefits larger businesses and not small- or medium- sized businesses.

3. The net result of Delaware’s policy choices is that “New Economy Index” produced by the liberal-leaning Progressive Policy Institute ranks the 2nd best in the nation, the conservative-leaning American Legislative Exchange scores 27th in their “Rich States, Poor States” publication, the business-backed Tax Foundation (disclosure: my former employer) ranks 14th-best, and even the libertarian Mercatus Center identifies as 17th “most free” in their Freedom in the 50 States report. A report by 24/7 Wall Street found Delaware to be the 13th best-run state in the nation, and academic measures of state corruption rank Delaware no worse than middle-of-the-pack. In fact, it is a real challenge to find any organization that scores Delaware poorly on any major policy metric or index.

Corruption in Delaware is not as bad as it is in places like Illinois, Rhode Island, California, or Louisiana. But saying it’s “good” is more on an indicator of how corrupt those states are. Delaware’s small size means “everyone knows everyone” attitude impacts the government but the state is not very forthcoming with state pension data or with how education dollars are being spent. That said, we are better than every other Mid-Atlantic state besides Virginia. We posted on the Tax Foundation’s analysis.

4. Likewise, Delaware has one of the lowest average price levels of any state in the region (except Virginia), and that price level is lowest in southern Delaware, where in-migration is highest.

I’ve repeatedly cast Delaware as a state that’s providing opportunities: for the young, for the less educated, and also for regional retirees who may not have the money for a bigger relocation to Texas or Florida (or who may not want to pay property and sales taxes in those states). That’s because Delaware’s migration record is simply the strongest across the most different categorizations of almost any state, especially among states without major oil and gas reserves. I’d love to hear more from people familiar with Delaware on how the state attracts people: beaches with rising popularity? corporate headquarters? retirement communities? strong university recruitment? sprawl from Philadelphia?

To Lyman’s final point, Delaware IS a very attractive place between Philly and Baltimore/DC. We are a train ride or short drive from all three cities and only three hours from New York City. The Beaches draw in tourists and retirees, and there is some Philly sprawl in the Claymont area. But Delaware is beginning to lose our status is a “tax haven”, now that Nevada and North Dakota are competing with us for our corporate business. The state spends way too much money and like most states will suffer from having to choose between Medicaid and public education once the federal government cuts back on its Obamacare obligations by 2019. Our three casinos are losing money and, barring a change in visitor habits ore legislative policy, will go out of business; 6% of our state’s revenue comes from casino taxes. We have a state carbon tax and cap-and-trade system (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) which is costing so much money CRI’s Energy Policy Director Dave Stevenson and our board member John Moore are suing DNREC to prevent a new carbon tax fee from being imposed on residents and businesses.

Delaware’s population is aging at a faster rate than the nation as a whole; right now half the state receives Medicare or Medicaid. By 2030 that number will be closer to 67% at current migration rates. Sussex County is already 25% senior citizens and that number grows ever year. As much as we at CRI love our seniors, someone has to help pay for Medicare/Social Security/ public housing assistance/public transportation, and other quality-of-life benefits seniors need to enjoy their retirement since we know the Feds won’t meet their future obligations.
Because of its strong migration record in a highly competitive area, other states could benefit from studying Delaware’s experience and determining which policies they can adopt for their own states.

Please don’t pass a gross receipts tax or block natural gas pipeline from reaching your states. We have high electricity prices and a mediocre public education system. Don’t be so aggressive and seizing abandoned property, even down to the Amazon gift cards which went unused. End the prevailing wage and establish a Right-to-Work law if your state doesn’t have one yet.

What do you think about Lyman’s blog post or our response?

Please consider eliminating your state’s sales tax and lowering property taxes, and have a court system which is seen as quick, efficient, and fair.

Read Full Post »

 green·wash·ing

noun \ˈgrēn-ˌw-shiŋ, –ˌwä-\

the practice of promoting environmentally friendly programs to deflect attention from an organization’s environmentally unfriendly or less savory activities; a superficial or insincere display of concern for the environment that is shown by an organization (dictionary.com definition)

For those of you who have followed CRI’s activities for the last two-plus years, you will recall how we have publicly opposed the state’s cronyist deal with Bloom Energy to hand a private “green” company $529 million in guaranteed state taxpayer revenue over a period of 21 years EVEN IF THE COMPANY GOES OUT OF BUSINESS OR RENEGES ON ITS OBLIGATIONS OR IF ITS TECHNOLOGY BECOMES OBSOLETE.

On Monday, October 20, 2014 NBC Bay Area ran a six-minute long investigation into Bloom Energy and whether the company was misleading the public about its technology. The video is below.

<script type=”text/javascript” charset=”UTF-8″ src=”http://www.nbcbayarea.com/portableplayer/?cmsID=279873632&videoID=rX70SdgdBmnB&origin=nbcbayarea.com&sec=investigations&subsec=&width=600&height=360″></script&gt;

From the article:

“The NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit analyzed performance data provided to the state of Delaware for Bloom boxes that power 22,000 homes in the state. Delaware is home to the largest installation of Bloom fuel cells in the nation, where the technology has been in operation for more than two years.

According to the most recent data available, Bloom boxes have achieved the 773 emission rate just three months out of a 24 month period. The average emission rate is 823.

The company declined numerous requests to discuss their carbon emission rate in an on-camera interview, but in a conference call Bloom representatives said the 773 figure is achieved when the boxes are brand new, noting that CO2 emissions increase as the boxes age.

“If the thing emits more carbon dioxide than they say it does then this is greenwashing,” Leveen said.”

The bottom line: The only thing “green” about Bloom Energy is the taxpayer money flowing from hardworking Delawareans, and even those who are not working, into the pockets of multibillionare business cronies and their allies.

If you agree please visit us a www.caesarrodney.org and donate today!

Read Full Post »

Please read this week’s guest post by Lindsay Leveen of the blog Greenexplored.com. Lindsay is a chemical engineer and has been an opponent of Bloom Energy based on the science, or lack of it when the decision was made to give Bloom a favorable deal in 2011 which grants it over $1.1 billion over 21 years for its fuel cell technology. A recent decision by a judge to grant standing to a Bloom Energy competitor gives hope future decisions, if not on Bloom, will be made on sound science and not on cronyism:

 

I have been wondering why DELMARVA Power entered into the deal to act as Bloom’s agent in the BLOOMDOGGLE of DELMARVA’s customers in Delaware???

 

I have blogged about the fraudulent overcharge for excess natural gas above the permitted maximum quantity in generating “unbetter” electrons from the Bloom coffins in the coastal zone of the first state.  DELMARVA is a party to this crime.  But why would a large utility become entangled in a BLOOMDOGGLE of major greenwashing and financial fraud proportions?

 

We have to go back a few years.  The government of the first state wanted greener energy in Delaware and had dictated that DELMARVA should enter into power purchase agreements for wind and solar generated power.  Of particular interest is a project called Blue Water Wind that was intended to supply 200 megawatts of offshore wind power to DELMARVA under an executed power purchase agreement (PPA).   This project on the rocks in May 2011 for lack of funding.  This possible abandonment occurred three years after the project was first announced.  The PPA was for a term of 25 five years and probably would have entailed a purchase of several hundred million dollars of wind power by DELMARVA Power.

 

http://thedailyrecord.com/2011/05/30/delaware-wind-project-hits-a-snag/

 

What was not reported by the Daily Record was that DELMARVA sorely wanted out of the PPA that was forced upon it by the Delaware state government as accounting rules would require DELMARVA to recognize the future payments under the PPA as debt on its balance sheet.

http://www.fasb.org/summary/stsum47.shtml

 

Hence when Al Gore and John Doerr brought the idea of locating Bloom Energy in Delaware with all those high paying manufacturing jobs that Governor Markell promised, DELMARVA Power jumped at the opportunity to get out from under the PPA with the folks in blue rather than green water.  The Blue Water folks walked away from their $2 million deposit (per the Daily Record link above) but did not have to pay DELMARVA Power an additional $6 million.  For DELMARVA Power this was a godsend.  No debt on the balance sheet, no need to deal with intermittent wind power, and they could simply become Bloom’s agent to collect the subsidy that Governor Markell, Secretary O’Mara, and Bloom negotiated in the smoke and sulfur filled room in the first state.  The epitome of win, win and more win

 

Note the news of the possible demise of the Blue Water project was on May 30, 2011 and this coincides with the permit preparations and bogus tariff approval that allowed the Bloom Boondoggle, the BLOOMDOGGLE, to occur.  In January 2012 NRG the developer of the Blue Water project placed the project into a cryogenic deep freeze.  Remember Secretary O/Mara issued his bogus coastal zone act completeness report for the Bloom project on February 10, 2012.  NRG was probably told to go fly a kite in the windy blue waters off the coast that would soon host the Bloom Coffins.

 

http://www.nrgenergy.com/nrgbluewaterwind/index.html

 

DELMARVA Power has a duty to protect its customers, but as Bloom’s agent they have now directly overcharged their customers for excess natural gas beyond the maximum permitted quantity Secretary O’Mara ruled as administratively complete, to generate these unbetter electrons from the Bloom coffins in the coastal zone.   Note I use “unbetter” as Bloom in their greenwashing on their website claims to deliver “better electrons”.  As the British say sarcastically “better my elbow!”

 

http://www.bloomenergy.com/clean-energy/

 

DELMARVA Power may have cleverly slinked away from BLUE WATER, but now that they are a direct party to fraudulent billing to the customers they are licensed to protect under a bogus tariff that exceeds the maximum permitted quantity of natural gas.  They are now actually in HOT WATER.  Hillary Clinton had WHITE WATER, DELMARVA Power had BLUE WATER, and none of these folks could ever find GREEN WATER as they all simply sucked all the GREEN out of the water.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_controversy

 
As for Governor Markell and Secretary O’Mara neither of them walk on water and both should attend a junior college and learn some ethics and thermodynamics.  Better still they should be spending all their time preparing their court defense in the case of Fuel Cell Energy that a federal judge ruled has merit for the cronyism these two gangrene politicians exhibited in welcoming the Bloom BLOOMDOGGLE to the first state.

Read Full Post »

The following blog post is  from Cause of Action, who has been involved in a lawsuit against Bloom Energy on behalf of John Nichols, a concerned local resident, and Fuel Cell Corp., a competitor of Bloom Energy from Connecticut. So far the judge who heard the case has ruled against John, but has never issued a ruling on the Fuel Cell Inc. issue. One wonders: How long can a judge go without issuing a ruling on a case he/she has heard?

Last month, Delmarva Power’s (Delmarva) Delaware utility customers learned that the “surcharge” they must pay each month to subsidize Bloom Energy, Inc.’s (Bloom) ongoing fuel cell project was increasing from an average 67 cents-per-month to $4.37 in November alone.

This “surcharge” is the result of a crony deal between Governor Jack Markell, the Delaware Public Service Commission (DPSC), and Delmarva to modify the Delaware Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards Act (REPSA), picking the pockets of Delmarva ratepayers and delivering millions of their dollars straight to Bloom.

Bloom’s sweetheart deal came down this way.  In October, 2011, Delmarva received approval from the DPSC to surcharge ratepayers’ electric bills and subsidize two generating stations and a fuel-cell factory in Newark, run by Bloom. Bloom, a California company, said that it would use Delmarva’s customers’ money to finance its factory and create 900 jobs manufacturing natural gas-powered fuel cells. Bloom also promised to install 30 megawatts of “Bloom Boxes” in the state.

The government then modified REPSA to establish a system of discriminatory eligibility requirements, subsidies, and energy-portfolio standards multipliers, all designed to benefit Bloom by denying out-of-state companies equal competitive footing, burdening interstate commerce, and increasing the costs for Delmarva ratepayers, who  might otherwise benefit from fair competition and an open market.

Bloom has quickly pocketed millions.  Yet, to date, the company’s promise of 900 jobs has proven to be empty.  In exchange for massive payments by Delaware consumers, it has created only a reported 50 jobs.

Last June Cause of Action, a government accountability group, filed a lawsuit challenging this backdoor deal. The suit seeks to overturn certain provisions of REPSA for unconstitutionally undermining the competitive market and forcing Delaware utility customers to pick up the tab.  We filed this suit on behalf of one of the many unsatisfied Delaware ratepayers subject to this special surcharge-subsidy, and an out-of-state fuel cell manufacturer whose competitive place in the clean energy market was thwarted by the Public Service Commission’s scheme to prop up Bloom at the expense of its own citizens.

Renewable energy competition means lower prices and better customer service.  But, by denying out-of-state companies the level playing field that they are entitled to under the law, Gov. Markell and the DPSC elevated the interests of a corporate crony over those of Delaware’s citizens and ratepayers.  Delaware utility payers now must pay for a surcharge that can rise rapidly without warning, oversight or explanation.  So the next time Delmarva customers pay their monthly utility bill with the Bloom surcharge, they should ask why their government “rigged the game” to prevent fair competition, and who, exactly, their government serves.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »