Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Renewable 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 »

The President is scheduled to personally present new regulations requiring carbon dioxide emissions be reduced at existing power plants, and you need to see the facts below. The President couldn’t pass a national carbon tax. Enough legislators understood taking unilateral action to lower carbon dioxide emissions would not solve anything but would make the United States less competitive in global markets. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can write standards but the states must write the implementation rules.

“We have to act now as 97% of scientists agree we already face catastrophic extreme weather from manmade greenhouse gas” – The source of the 97% is vague and depends on repeating it enough that you begin to believe it. Most scientists agree man is increasing carbon dioxide levels and this will probably cause some increase in temperatures. Most do not agree there is a link with extreme weather events or we face a near term crisis. In fact, US satellite data show temperatures have not increased in seventeen years, a period that saw greenhouse gas increase 34%. The US Energy Information Agency reports US emissions have been reduced 9% since 2007 while the rest of the world is up 10%.

“The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made a thorough review” – The Administrator of the EPA has the authority to determine what science is used to calculate standards and how rules will be developed and applied so the books are cooked against using coal for electric generation.

“These Standards will cost only $10 billion for implementation but will save us a $100 billion so it’s a good deal” – Our review of recent regulations indicates the EPA will most likely exaggerate indirect benefits based on fewer premature deaths from fine particle air pollution. Using less coal incidentally reduces fine particle emission. The problem with that is Air Quality Standards are already set to a level that will not cause harm in even sensitive groups such as asthmatics and those standards are being met by a wide margin. The EPA will ignore the Air Quality Standards and assume fewer deaths from any level of fine particle reduction. Plants need carbon dioxide to grow so higher levels means tens of billions of dollars of increased crop production which should offset most of the exaggerated benefits associated with carbon dioxide reduction.

“These standards are fair” – Red states with a high concentration of coal fired plants providing power to the rest of the country will bear most of the cost. Energy importing blue states with expensive requirements for wind and solar power, and existing carbon taxes will be rewarded.

“This plan is flexible and won’t require a carbon tax” – The options will probably include switching fuels from coal to natural gas or wind and solar, requiring energy efficiency improvements, using carbon sequestration, or using a carbon tax and trade program. Electric grid reliability is already in danger during cold snaps as natural gas for home heating is given preference over electric generation. Until more pipelines are built we should avoid further fuel switching. Sequestration is unproven and expensive. Proponents will likely argue carbon taxes are the easiest solution to implement, and the revenue could be used for efficiency programs. In reality, most states will be forced into carbon tax and trade programs, the President’s real intent. Unfortunately, we have six years experience with a nine state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) to prove the carbon tax and trade model doesn’t work. Our review showed RGGI had no success in either reducing carbon dioxide emissions, or in increasing energy efficiency, and will cost electric customers $3.3 billion extra between now and 2020 (RGGI, Inc estimate). Coal fired power plants closed because of other EPA regulations, and coal plants switched fuels because of lower cost natural gas, not because of RGGI. Most of the energy efficiency projects funded by RGGI had no post project audits to confirm the energy savings were real, and there was no accounting for “free riders” or the “rebound effect”. Free riders accept grants but would have done projects anyway. Rebounders might install an energy efficient heating unit but then keep their homes warmer.

Read Full Post »

For Immediate Release

Contact:

Samuel Friedman

Communications Director

Tel. 302-734-2700

E-mail: Sam@caesarrodney.org

 

Abuse of Power Lawsuit Filed Against DNREC

Agency’s new emission permit ‘fees’ violate state constitution

            Dover- The Caesar Rodney Institute (CRI) announced today that David Stevenson, Director of the Center for Energy Competitiveness at CRI, is among four plaintiffs who filed a lawsuit this week against DNREC and DNREC Secretary Colin O’Mara.

 

The complaint asserts Secretary O’Mara has not been delegated the power to reduce the agency’s new carbon emissions goals, which is the basis for raising the carbon dioxide permit fees.  The plaintiffs also believe DNREC is violating the Delaware Constitution by issuing a regulation on carbon dioxide emission permit fees without the state legislature, as required in the state constitution. This new regulatory ruling will cost Delaware families and businesses over $50 million a year in fees collected through consumers’ electric bills.

 

“Multiple parties warned DNREC this decision was a potential violation of the Delaware Constitution in public comment sessions but the comments were ignored,” Stevenson explained. ” The state constitution specifically requires that all taxes and fees must be approved by a 3/5 majority in each legislative chamber.”

 

“One of the biggest debates in the legislature this year was over a tax increase,” Plaintiff and State Representative Harold “Jack” Peterman said. “Twenty-two legislators opposed an attempt by Delmarva Power to raise electric rates, and both issues involved less money than this. Twenty-five percent of the money collected must be spent on energy efficiency projects and on helping people pay their electric bills, according to a multi-state Memorandum of Understanding.  Unlike most state spending, the legislature has no say in how the money raised from this fee increase will be spent.”

 

The other plaintiffs are: Christian Hudson, of Hudson Management and Sam Yoder & Sons in Greenwood; and John Moore, CEO of Acorn Energy in Wilmington and a CRI board member.

 

“Businesses are already struggling with high electric bills; we don’t need to add to the problem and make Delaware less competitive”, Hudson said.

 

“The regulatory change DNREC is proposing doesn’t appear to be about the environment but rather about raising more state revenue”, Moore said.

 

The case will be heard by Judge Richard F. Stokes, Superior Court judge, in Georgetown.

 

read the full complaint: http://www.caesarrodney.org/pdfs/DNREC_Lawsuit.pdf

#####################################################################################

 

Read Full Post »

Whether you celebrate Christmas or another holiday this season, we wish you a Merry Christmas, a Happy Holiday, and a joyous New Year!

In the final post for the year 2013 we conclude our series of recapping what the Sea Level Rise Advisory:

“Any strategic plan about options to prepare a state for sea level rise must consider…the need for public investment and resources essential to the plan,” wrote one individual involved in the SLR process. Other requests include “broad-based revenue raising” (i.e. all Delawareans will be subject to some sort of tax or fee, someway, somehow). “Continued research, relevant capital, and infrastructure investments.”

“The Committee’s choice to characterize its deliberations and work on Sea Level Rise adaptations as ‘options’ for ‘potential’ inclusion into a state adaption plan…feeds into a public perception that the Committee’s work might be more of an academic exercise than a serious endeavor to move forward. To me it…makes it easier for decision-makers, including elected officials, to ‘opt out’ or play down action oriented strategies. programs, policies, and the necessary investments to investing required public funds.”

The author does not want to “encourage”  SLR preparatory planning. Rather, he/she wants Executive orders from the Governor to require SLR planning (p.72)

_______________________________________________________
“Passive Solar heating and cooling can save 50% of (sic) the cost of heating and cooling from a building. It is required by law for California.  The Legislature needs to copy this law for Delaware.” The author of this letter proposes going back to a 1990 EPA proposal to require companies with over 100 employees a a site to reduce the number of cars at the site;  ideas include requiring carpooling and charging employees for parking.

“The only real solution to shoreline erosion is to retreat, as has occurred for nearly 400 years of settlement of Delaware.” Ban beach replenishment and federal flood insurance, since “taxpayers put up $3 for every $1 that the homeowner puts up”. (p.78).

Pages 80-88 were blacked out. No idea what was in them; an attempt to obtain those pages will be made. The same is true of pages 121-122.

The League of Women Voters in Delaware are on record supporting the SLR planning agenda.  “Require SLR be considered in public and private sector regional planning.”

“Develop a statewide retreat plan and update it periodically.”

Their letter talks about “Transfer of Development Rights”-this is when landowners are incentivized to not develop their land. In terms of environmentalism, this means to steer land development away from rural areas or areas with natural resources.  As an example, suppose you own farmland in one of the “endangered” zones. You would agree to sell the rights to development to one of the “good” groups, say the Sierra Club, for example. You would still legally own the land, but not the rights to develop the land. The Sierra Club would own those rights. Given their track record of being against nearly all development of any kind, basically what you have agreed to do is to receive payment in exchange for stopping further development or unapproved use of your land. This is one way anti-growth people and organizations have proposed to halt future development-rather than use  the rule of law to halt you, they convince you to stop development, and give you some money as a bonus for your troubles.

What do they recommend the state do to combat this “crisis”?

1. Consider a “coastal security tax”-

2. increase taxes on hotels, motels, and “weekend” (also monthly and seasonal) homes and apartments.

3. increase real estate transfer taxes and building permit fees for coastal building properties and homes.

4. Carbon tax-$2 per ton of CO2, increased as costs from “recovering from storms” increases.

5. Add a surcharge to Route 1 traffic; the surcharge would pay for changes to transportation and roads due to SLR.

6. Require realtors to disclose the “risks” of SLR in Delaware. It says the state, not even just the coastal areas.

7. Set up a database, via the Insurance Commisioners’s office, with up to date info on storm and flood insurance availability and costs from both private and public sources.

8. “Social justice”-have equal redistribution of reimbursement resources for all residents affected by SLR, regardless of any factors.

A group called Dover Interfaith Power & Light is also mentioned, also supporting the conclusions of the Advisory Committee. Highlights:

-they want to, by the 8th grade, teach students the “underlying science and history of weather, climate, SLR, and coastal storms.” We can speculate how the information will be taught and how many viewpoints would be presented to the students.

-they agreed with all  of the LWV proposals listed above

This group believes SLR is being underestimated-will be more than 1.5 meters, and melting ice caps will continue for at least 1000 years. At current fossil fuel use trends, Delaware will be mostly underwater in a few centuries.

__________________________________________

The final respondent to the survey accused the scientists behind the original 57 inch SLR projection of “scientifically unsubstantiated claims” and asked the government to not “meddle and promote a counterproductive agenda.” The author calls for letting private investment “take responsibility for purchasing low lying land”.

“Since DNREC and the EPA don’t really know ‘best’, let industries and businesses develop their own coping plans if and when such become necessary.”

The author concludes his/her criticism of the government by saying that “property rights were being eroded” and that SLR appeared to be the “new public crisis.”

135 pages of documentation from the state on SLR reveals a truth we long suspected but only now is being confirmed: those who believe that humans are the primary factors behind global warming, who believe the Arctic ice has melted, and who believe the melting ice caps will cause a large amount of flooding, are going to insist the state begin a multifaceted campaign to counter SLR, including retreating from the shores, raising taxes on individuals, businesses, property owners, and land developers who live near the shore, and asking the state to further regulate different aspects of land use from building permits to septic tanks.

Many of these people have no problem with requiring others to do things against their will and do not want to have any opposing viewpoints presented. The fact that the state hired Dr. Katharine Hayhoe to provide alarmist predictions about the future of Delaware’s weather shows the state wants to consider  future punitive action against those who are “over-developing” by the shore. They use the worst-case scenarios not merely as a possibility but as a likelihood when planning for SLR. Stricter energy mandates and carbon taxes will be the wave of the future in Delaware if not challenged.

Read Full Post »

please enjoy another guest blog post from Lindsay Leveen, from greenexplored.com
No doubt Bloom Energy knows the way to San Jose.  They do not need Dionne Warwick to show them the way.  They were pleased to announce on their website on October 29, 2012 that they placed two boxes at the San Jose Pavilion where the Sharks play NHL hockey.
Bloom provided the Sharks spokesman the data in the press release that they will save 4.8 million pounds of CO2 emissions over a ten year period with the two boxes at the Pavilion.    I contacted the Sharks Spokesman (Jim Sparaco) by email and told him that if the PG&E data on the grid emissions only being 393 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour are correct and the data in the Bloom permit filing in Delaware are correct and if the boxes have an uptime of 95% then the Pavilion will in fact be adding 16.3 million more pounds of CO2 over the ten year period than the case where they continued to simply buy electricity off of the grid from PG&E.
The Sharks Spokesman replied to my email that he had contacted Bloom to ask about the discrepancy between the data Bloom provided him for his press release and the PG&E and Bloom Delaware data.  I am happy that the spokesman takes his job seriously and does not want to be the cause of greenwashing.
Today I sent an email to the spokesman as well as the Mayor of San Jose, Chuck Reed, and helped inform the Mayor of the possible greenwashing at the state-of-the-art arena.    You see the mayor was quoted in the press release as follows:  “Congratulations to HP Pavilion for being the first arena in the nation to implement Bloom Energy’s cutting-edge fuel cell technology.”  Yeah Mr. Mayor this cutting-edge technology may well be an illusion.
The City of San Jose owns the arena and they are therefore directly responsible for the emissions of CO2 and VOCs as well as the toxic and hazardous solid wastes that accumulate in the Bloom Boxes.  I am sure that the Mayor just like the spokesman was given misleading information by Bloom.
We now have evidence that Bloom gave the operators of the San Jose Pavilion the data on their emissions.  Bloom can either respond to the spokesman and the mayor that PG&E is fibbing about the grid emissions and / or that Bloom provided Delaware with incorrect information in a permit application submitted under penalty of perjury.  Or they can tell the city of San Jose that the boxes will not save 4.8 million pounds of CO2 emissions over the 10 years.
No matter what Bloom tells the Spokesman or the Mayor their data somewhere are not correct.  Won’t it be nice if they misled Delaware rather than San Jose?  That is a crime under penalty of perjury.  If they misled San Jose rather than Delaware that is a crime against me and my neighbors as we all pay money into the SGIP to lower carbon emissions.  We all breathe the crisp air in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Interestingly the population of Delaware (917,012) is similar to the population of the city of San Jose (982,765).  It looks like Bloom likes boondoggling in places with approximately one million people.  My congressman pretends to represent the 707,530 people living in the 2nd Congressional district of California.  While Mr. Huffman is a champion boondoggler, Bloom has him beat by an extra 275,235 people in San Jose and 209,482 extra people in the First State.
Now the zinger!!! The  Secretary of the Delaware  Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) is Collin O’Mara.    Quoting from the DNREC web site “Prior to joining Governor Markell, Secretary O’Mara served as the Clean Tech Strategist for the City of San Jose, and was the primary architect of the city of San Jose’s Green Vision, built upon the belief that environmental sustainability and smart economic development are inextricably linked and entirely compatible. “
Wow there is a link between the San Jose Boondoggle and The Delaware Boondoggle.  It is Mr. O’Mara!!!  Honestly the whole thing reads like a novel called “Carbon Dioxide Into The Wind”.  Our hero is Green not Rhett and the leading high maintenance person is O’Mara not O’Hara.  But the key line from this book is “frankly my dear Scollin, I do give a damn!”

Read Full Post »

from the Caesar Rodney Institute:

 

Lawsuit against the Bloom Energy Deal to be Heard Next Week

Wilmington- The lawsuit against the Bloom Energy deal approved by Governor Jack Markell and five members of the Public Service Commission will be heard at the US District Court on Wednesday, November 14, at 2 PM. The hearing will be in Courtroom 6C on 844 North King Street in front of Judge Christopher J. Burke. The hearing is open to the public, and all are encouraged to attend.

The plaintiffs are John Nichols and Fuel Cell Energy of Connecticut. Mr. Nichols is a citizen who believes his rights as a taxpayer and local resident are being violated as a result of a government-backed deal to provide over $600 million in taxpayer stimulus. Fuel Cell Energy believes they were unable to sell their products in Delaware because Bloom Energy had already been chosen to take the deal offered by the government.

The plaintiffs are being represented by Cause of Action, a non-profit which works to protect the public and taxpayer interests in favor of government accountability and transparency. The Caesar Rodney Institute provided expert testimony in Mr. Nichols’ hearing at the Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board on June 13 of this year. CRI’s testimony and research data on the Bloom Energy deal will be considered as part of the lawsuit.

Please contact:

Barrett Kidner

Chairman and CEO

(302) 734-4935

bek@caesarrodney.org

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »