Blog of the Year?
DelawareLiberal is running a poll for blog of the year. Head on over and vote for the blog of your choice.
Now, most of Glenville is gone, bought out in a $34 million project to get residents out of harm's way. The state tore down 167 of the 194 homes -- with one more to go -- and fenced off the lowest-lying areas, which soon will be excavated as part of a 52-acre wetlands "bank" that can be used to offset future highway projects.It has been more than four years since Tropical Storm Henri flooded the Red Clay watershed. But could it happen again, elsewhere in the watershed? Was this just a fluke, one of the many storms of the century as it were?
Revisions to flood-plain maps are common and reflect new development and other factors that affect the way water flows. The maps show where the water is likely to reach flood stage in a 100-year flood (a storm with a 1 percent chance of occurring in a year) and a 500-year flood (a storm with a 0.2 percent chance of occurring in a year).We've become accustomed to building what we want, where we want. When government proposes limits on development, we hear cries of property rights being taken away. But Mother Nature is less amenable to pressure from developers.
FEMA's most recent maps use flow data that is 22 years old, according to Mike Powell of the state Division of Soil and Water Conservation. The new maps will include data from the 2003 Red Clay flood, which was considered a 500-year flood, as well as 100-year floods in 1999 and 2004.
The potential affect of those changes is alarming to some property owners.
"They may put 1,000 homes into the flood plain that are not in the flood plain now," said Ed Boisvert, vice president of the Glenville Civic Association, who has represented the community in meetings with government officials. "If that happens, all those people have to buy flood insurance, property values deteriorate and there is a lot of politics."
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency signaled Thursday that it was prepared to comply with a Congressional request for all documents, including communications with the White House, concerning its decision to block California from imposing limits on heat-trapping gases.All well and good. But why should employees of public agencies need to be told to preserve the records of regulatory decisions? Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) has posted the email ordering that documents be retained. According to PEER, the way in which EPA administrator Stephen Johnson announced the decision raises questions about the agency's deliberations:
The agency’s general counsel directed employees in a memorandum to preserve and produce all documents related to the decision, including any opposing views and communications between senior agency officials and the White House.
Although Johnson’s decision on the request by California and other states to regulate greenhouse gases from automobiles was supposed to have been the product of months of legal and scientific deliberation, Johnson hastily called a press conference at 6:30 pm to cite the energy bill signed just that morning as the principal basis for his veto of state action. Senator Boxer in her letter characterized Johnson’s "two-page letter denying the waiver [as] devoid of any legal or technical analysis."The email from EPA's general counsel brings back memories of Enron and Arthur Andersen:
EPA has received a second request for documents relating to the California waiver request. Please immediately take appropriate steps to preserve any such documents. You will also need to produce the documents.Not all of the administration's penchant for secrecy has to do with national security issues. It is worth remembering that the first fight over opening up BushCo's records involved Dick Cheney's secretive energy task force.
CHICO: Hey, wait, wait. What does this say here, this thing here?YouTube has the scene.
GROUCHO: Oh, that? Oh, that's the usual clause, that's in every contract. That just says, uh, it says, uh, if any of the parties participating in this contract are shown not to be in their right mind, the entire agreement is automatically nullified.
CHICO: Well, I don't know...
GROUCHO: It's all right. That's, that's in every contract. That's, that's what they call a sanity clause.
CHICO: Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! You can't fool me. There ain't no Sanity Clause!
Here's our theory: There is, in fact, a nonsupernatural Santa. It's a transnational corporation with one mission-critical fulfillment goal: Every kid who celebrates the holiday gets a toy on Christmas eve.It's a logistical challenge deserving of a business school case study: 2.7 million people distributing 34 million gifts in one short night (that's 3,148 gifts per second) at an annual cost of $27.5 billion.
Genus: HoldenescusAttentive readers may dimly remember the loss of the beloved pear tree outside my window back in September, 2005. Through a unfortunate series of events, including the planting of one tree that proved to be dead on arrival, this spot in an otherwise lovely neighborhood has remained untroubled by leaves or any sign of plant life for the last two years and three months.
Species: Stickitana uprightus
This rare tree, found mainly in the cities of North America, grows and reproduces through osmosis, using no leaves or flowers. At sapling stage it is pruned dramatically. This unique adaptation keeps birds from roosting and allows insects access to the tree's core. The Stickitana uprightus is often found in urban areas where under observant gardeners reside.
Heartfelt thanks to the Delaware Center for Horticulture for making it possible to observe this rare species in its native habitat.
Constellation Energy Group Inc. (CEG) Friday said it will pay an undisclosed sum to buy 545 megawatts of electric power to be produced between 2011 and 2017 at a new combined cycle natural gas plant to be built by Pepco Holdings Inc. (POM) Conectiv unit in York County, Pa.You may be aware that Delmarva Power is saying it can buy onshore, out of state wind power cheaper than the proposed offshore wind project. But when it comes to investing in new power generation, it's business as usual for Pepco Holdings, which you might recall, owns Delmarva Power as well as Conectiv Energy.
Constellation Energy will supply natural gas to the facility and provide payments over the delivery term to acquire the output of the facility, which is to be built in Peach Bottom Township, Pa., near Maryland.
"Putting lawn clippings in a highly engineered, secure land disposal just does not make any sense," said Nicholas A. DiPasquale, a former DNREC secretary and current conservation chairman for Delaware Audubon Society.Landfill space is not a renewable resource. The DSWA spent roughly $86 million to increase the height limit on Cherry Island by 23 feet. That's about $3.7 million per foot. That's a lot of money for the privilege of piling grass clippings.
"It's really not necessary or appropriate," DiPasquale said. "We're basically throwing away a resource, and landfill space is going to increasingly become a premium. I think we need to reserve it for those things that we can't otherwise reuse."
Tom Noyes, whose Tommywonk blog is widely read among Delaware environmentalists, expressed optimism the issues could be worked out.What did I mean?
"We've got the facts on our side, we've got the law on our side, we've got public sentiment on our side. Now we just have to get talking to our legislators," Noyes said.
The Bluewater-Delmarva PPA establishes new, innovative generation that promotes fuel diversity in Delaware. The delivered cost of fuel to power plants throughout PJM is the single largest determinant of electric energy prices.It can hardly be said that the PSC staff is skewing the facts, given the staff's recommendations in October to kill what looked like a much less attractive proposal.
The Bluewater-Delmarva PPA would reduce Delaware’s reliance on wholesale market prices dictated by natural gas prices, and accordingly, would dampen SOS ratepayers’ exposure to price volatility.
Bluewater’s PPA proposal presents a number of long-term system benefits provided for under the EURCSA. First and foremost, price stability – the primary goal of the EURCSA – is a principal attribute of the Bluewater-Delmarva PPA.The News Journal editorial board made the point that the process is proceeding according to the law:
If they [legislators] want to kill the law they created, they should vote to kill it -- on the record.We've got public sentiment on our side...
Delaware's old-boy network in government apparently has scored another victory for mediocrity. This time a proposed offshore wind farm has been tabled indefinitely.The editorial rightly points out wind power proposal has progressed thanks to an open process and shouldn't be killed behind closed doors:
The backhandedness of the action sends a big signal to other businesses considering settling in Delaware:The news article ends on an upbeat note:
Don't do it because the state government doesn't play by the rules it sets.
If legislators oppose the process, they should come out and say so -- on the record.
If they have questions about the proposal, they should air them -- on the record.
If they want to kill the law they created, they should vote to kill it -- on the record.
The voters should know where they stand.
The yearlong discussion about the wind farm has given rise to a grass-roots environmental movement in Delaware. And after the meeting, those activists converged in private to determine their next steps.Stay tuned.
Tom Noyes, whose Tommywonk blog is widely read among Delaware environmentalists, expressed optimism the issues could be worked out.
"We've got the facts on our side, we've got the law on our side, we've got public sentiment on our side. Now we just have to get talking to our legislators," Noyes said.
After an informed and deliberative review of the proposed PPA, Staff recommends that the State Agencies approve the PPA with the condition precedent that the Commission enter an order approving a non-bypassable charge, pursuant to 26 Del. C. § 1010(c), that spreads the cost associated with the PPA to Delmarva’s entire customer base.I have been hearing of a great deal of interest in expanding the customer base. In and of itself, it's a reasonable question. However, making adoption of the PPA contingent is problematic
Marc Weiss and Nancy Sedmak-Weiss and Professors Firestone and Kempton offer similar arguments in their submissions, which can be read along with Pat's letter here.
It is definitely possible to address the “fairness” issue (cost-sharing across DPL or state-wide) but I believe it must be done in a logical sequence, or the wind farm proposal could be destroyed in a Gordian knot of competing interests, through no fault of its own. I believe EURCSA, 29 Del. Code §1010c provides the answer (my bold below):
§ 1010. Electric distribution companies' obligation to serve customers.
(c) After hearing and a determination that it is in the public interest, the Commission is authorized to restrict retail competition and/or add a nonbypassable charge to protect the customers of the electric distribution company receiving standard offer service. The General Assembly recognizes that electric distribution companies are now required to provide standard offer service to many customers who may not have the opportunity to choose their own electric supplier. Consequently, it is necessary to protect these customers from substantial migration away from standard offer service, whereupon they may be forced to share too great a share of the cost of the fixed assets that are necessary to serve them as required by the Electric Utility Retail Customer Supply Act of 2006, 75 Del. Laws, c. 242. (72 Del. Laws, c. 10, § 3; 74 Del. Laws, c. 73, §§ 4, 5; 75 Del. Laws, c. 242, § 8.)Section 1010c above states the purpose of the nonbypassable charge is to “protect” the customers from “substantial migration” as the result of a increased rates which could compel others to leave Delmarva Power for another supplier of power. There is no language in the statute to allows the Commission to condition approval of a contract on a surcharge hearing.
After an informed and deliberative review of the proposed PPA, Staff recommends that the State Agencies approve the PPA with the condition precedent that the Commission enter an order approving a non-bypassable charge, pursuant to 26 Del. C. § 1010(c), that spreads the cost associated with the PPA to Delmarva’s entire customer base.There has been considerable discussion, and plausible arguments offered, for spreading the costs beyond Standard Offer Service (SOS) customers. However, such a decision lies beyond the matter on the table before the PSC on Tuesday.
If the PSC and other state agencies believe that it would be appropriate to extend the customer base, it should be presented to the General Assembly in the context of an approved PPA. We have all gained an appreciation of the complexity of this process, and should not want the possible need for action on one point—extraneous to the PPA itself—to provide an opening to revisit the entire range of issues reflected in the PPA.In other words, action on the PPA should be governed by the current law, and not delayed by any possible revisions now being contemplated. The wind power deal on the table would be good for Delaware for reasons cited in the PSC staff report, and merits approval now as provided for under EURCSA.
After an informed and deliberative review of the proposed PPA, Staff recommends that the State Agencies approve the PPA with the condition precedent that the Commission enter an order approving a non-bypassable charge, pursuant to 26 Del. C. § 1010(c), that spreads the cost associated with the PPA to Delmarva’s entire customer base.The report reviews the ups and downs of the negotiations and identifies the ways in which the PPA meets the requirements of the Electric Utility Retail Customer Supply Act of 2006 (EURCSA):
Bluewater’s PPA proposal presents a number of long-term system benefits provided for under the EURCSA. First and foremost, price stability – the primary goal of the EURCSA – is a principal attribute of the Bluewater-Delmarva PPA. The Bluewater-Delmarva PPA establishes new, innovative generation that promotes fuel diversity in Delaware. The delivered cost of fuel to power plants throughout PJM is the single largest determinant of electric energy prices. Natural gas is the primary fuel of critical relevance in setting energy prices in the PJM market. The long-term outlook for natural gas prices reflects robust demand and increased reliance on imported natural gas supplies from the Middle East, the Former Soviet Union, and Africa for which the U.S. must compete with Asia and Europe. Accordingly, over the long-term, natural gas prices are expected to remain high by historic standards and also extremely volatile. Moreover, as electricity consumers across the nation have painfully learned, the thin margin between the U.S. supply and demand can have disastrous effects on price in the event of natural disasters or pipeline disturbances. The Bluewater-Delmarva PPA would reduce Delaware’s reliance on wholesale market prices dictated by natural gas prices, and accordingly, would dampen SOS ratepayers’ exposure to price volatility. Delaware’s captivity to the volatility of the PJM market and its RPM rules is the precise ground for Staff’s May 3, 2007 recommendation that Delaware take control of its energy future through a diverse energy supply portfolio.This report should carry considerable weight, considering that the staff previously recommended against the terms on the table at the end of October.
A mighty wind: part XIXI posted this response:
On the eve of the big Mountaineers vs Chickens I-AA championship game, Delaware is considering the country's first offshore wind farm. Keep up to date on the wind issues over at Tommywonk and the football game at Gameday Central.
I don't know anything about the issue but it appears that there is little resistance and it might actually happen. This likely means that:
a) there are no rich people in Delaware that own massive beach cottages (e.g., DuPont)
b) the rich people in Delaware that own massive beach cottages aren't as bratty as the rich people that own massive beach cottages in Massachusetts (ahem, ASU beat UMass for the 206 I-AA national championship)
c) Rehoboth Beach sucks anyway
d) all of the above
Here is the official FCS website.
You are right that there is little popular resistance to the proposed wind farm. As for why, it is not because Rehoboth Beach sucks--it's a beautiful place. One possible factor is that the wind turbines would be located 11.5 miles off the coast, much farther away than the proposed Cape Wind project.The professor replied, asking:
If you're looking for a good guys vs. bad guys narrative, the local utility, Delmarva Power, is fighting it every step of the way.
Perhaps the fact that Delaware's residents aren't so bratty will be a factor in our favor in the game. FYI, we're called the Blue Hens, not the Chickens.
Isn't a hen a chicken, much like a mountaineer is a hillbilly?It seems that some matters take precedence over using sound economic analysis to save the planet.
FIN 46 (Section 12.4)After considering the pitfalls and potential remedies, Hamermesh offered this proposal on how to handle the issue:
6. The most divisive and time-consuming issue in the negotiations was the treatment of a risk that, by all accounts, is extremely unlikely to arise. That risk involves the possibility that the assets and liabilities associated with the Project will, at some indeterminate point in the future, be required to be consolidated on Delmarva’s financial statements under FASB Interpretation No. 46, or “FIN 46”. The particular risk addressed by the parties that might bring about this consolidation is the possibility of amendments to FIN 46.
7. Neither of the parties contends that such financial consolidation would be required under current accounting rules. Notably, confirmation of that proposition is a condition precedent to the effectiveness of the December 10 PPA (Section 5.1(a)(iii)). Likewise, both parties seem to acknowledge that even if pertinent accounting rules did change in a manner that would otherwise call for consolidation of the Project on Delmarva’s financial statements, it is most likely that the original accounting treatment of the Project and the December 10 PPA would be “grandfathered,” in which case such original treatment would continue to apply. I therefore believe that it would be most unfortunate if the disposition of an issue as speculatively problematic as the treatment of a FIN 46 consolidation event contributed in any material way to the Agencies’ overall approval or disapproval of the December 10 PPA.
8. Because it perceives that the adverse effects of consolidation would be severe, however, Delmarva has vigorously asserted that it should be absolutely protected from FIN 46 consolidation risk. In particular, it has sought the absolute right to terminate the PPA if a FIN 46 consolidation were required, and could not be cured promptly by Bluewater. On the other hand, Bluewater has expressed grave concern that an event not of its own making (an accounting rules change) could permit Delmarva to abandon the PPA, leaving Bluewater unable to recoup its substantial investment in the Project without any protection under the terms of the PPA.
12. Accordingly, the only solution I considered fair and appropriate was one in which an independent assessment of appropriate measures would be made if and when a FIN 46 consolidation were actually threatened, and the potential effects of such a consolidation and measures that might avoid it could be evaluated in a concrete context. Section 12.4 thus establishes a process in which, following notice of a threatened FIN 46 consolidation, an independent evaluator would initially recommend potential means to remedy the circumstances creating the FIN 46 determination. The independent evaluator would give preference to remedies that would avoid consolidation pursuant to FIN 46, avoid termination of the PPA, and, to the extent practicable, minimize adverse impacts – including impairment of the benefits of the PPA – on the parties and on Delmarva’s customers.The issue of whether to spread the cost (and the benefits) to all of Delmarva's customers, not just SOS (Standard Service Offer) customers cannot be resolved in the negotiations. Since the original bill (EURCSA) specifies SOS customers, only the General Assembly can change the customer base that would be served by the wind farm. Delmarva is insisting that the General Assembly act on this change before the PPA's effective date.
Nick is conservation chair of Delaware Audubon. He previously served as Delaware's secretary of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.
Citizens for a Better Sussex
Citizens for Clean Power
Clean Air Council
Coalition for Climate Change Study and Action
Delaware Chapter of the Sierra Club
Delaware Nature Society
League of Women Voters of Delaware
December 12, 2007
Representative Terry R. Spence
Speaker of the House
Senator Thurman Adams
President Pro Tempore of the Senate
Representative Richard C. Cathcart
Senator Anthony J. DeLuca
Representative Clifford G. “Biff” Lee
Senator Patricia M. Blevins
Representative Robert F. Gilligan
Senator Charles L. Copeland
Representative Helene M. Keeley
Senator Liane M. Sorenson
An Open Letter to the Legislative Leaders of Delaware:
For a number of months, representatives of the organizations listed above have worked to raise the level of public awareness about the health and environmental impacts associated with fossil fuel power production. Over this same period, we have witnessed the release of the Fourth Assessment of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which offers a dire picture of our future if we fail to undertake immediate and
aggressive measures to reduce carbon emissions, the major cause of global warming. Coal-fired power plants, which now produce more than half of the nation’s electrical power, are the largest source of carbon and toxic air emissions in Delaware and throughout the country.
We support the aggressive adoption of energy efficiency and conservation measures. However, we recognize that new power production from renewable energy sources also will be required. We have been evaluating the benefits of offshore wind energy as a clean, non-carbon emitting alternative energy source. Our members have spent countless hours reviewing documents and getting educated on the complexities of utility regulations and economics.
Most of our organizations are comprised of volunteers who have no other interest than ensuring the best possible outcome for the citizens of Delaware. We believe the Public Service Commission and other decision-making agencies should direct Delmarva Power to enter into a long-term Power Purchase Agreement to construct the proposed offshore wind energy project.
We are convinced that, while this project may initially cost a little more than fossil fuel-based energy, in the long run there will be an overall cost savings, not only in terms of reduced rates and stable prices, but in healthcare and environmental costs as well.
While both land-based and offshore wind energy are far superior to fossil-fuel energy sources, land-based wind energy alone will not be able to satisfy increasing requirements for renewable energy by states and the federal government. Delaware’s land-based wind energy resource is extremely limited. However, nearly 80% of the nation’s high-quality, near-shore (less than 30m depth) wind energy resource is located in the Mid-Atlantic coastal region. This geographic advantage represents a huge economic development potential for Delaware that would help diversify our economy, provide a new source of high-skilled, well-paid jobs, and offer a new revenue stream to the state from power exports.
This issue will go before the Public Service Commission on December 18th. It is critical that Commission members and the other decision-making agency representatives support the offshore wind energy project. We urge you to instruct Controller General Larson, as your representative to these proceedings, to vote in favor of the Power Purchase Agreement currently before them.
Difficult decisions require strong leadership. We must take control of our energy future.
Nicholas A. DiPasquale
Enclosed for filing is the form of Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) prepared in accordance with the agencies’ December 4, 2007 Order. While it is labeled an “agreement,” and Bluewater has indicated that it is prepared to enter into that agreement, I wish to make clear that there are important aspects of it which Delmarva opposes, and there is therefore no mutually acceptable PPA at this point. I will submit by the end of the day on Wednesday a summary of the several issues on which it was necessary for me to specify a resolution to be embodied in the agreement, and my rationales for resolving them as I did.Even though the price has come down, the News Journal reports that Delmarva Power is still balking at the deal, quoting spokesman Bill Yingling:
Yingling said Delmarva continues to have concerns that offshore wind power would cost customers too much. Other forms of renewable energy, such as onshore wind, could be purchased from out of state, he said. The onshore option is not currently on the table, however, as the agencies are following a legislative directive to seek new Delaware-based power generation options.These issues aren't really addressed in the PPA itself. When Yingling and other Delmarva execs talk about seeking other, out of state, sources of renewable energy, what they really mean is that Delmarva wants to scrap the current negotiations and go shopping for energy on the market, just as the company does now. It's a direct challenge to the authority of the PSC and the other state agencies under the law governing the current negotiations.
Yingling said Delmarva continues to be concerned that residents and small businesses, which buy 28 percent of Delmarva Power's electricity, will pay for the extra costs of the wind power. Industrial customers would receive the wind power, but not have to pay more for it.
Yingling said Delmarva was not refusing to sign a contract.
"At this point, we have not been asked to sign a contract yet. So it would be premature
to say we weren't willing. We look forward to seeing how the state agencies address these significant issues in this proposal," Yingling said.
Summary of Terms of Proposed Power Purchase Agreement Between Delmarva Power & Light and Bluewater Wind LLCThe News Journal is reporting that Delmarva still doesn't want to do the deal.
This proposed contract contains hundreds of provisions that define the responsibilities of the parties including, but not limited to, the obligations, rights, operating conditions, timing and damages associated with performance or failure to perform. This summary does not, in any way purport to identify how, when or where those provisions affect the contract obligations. It is an overview of the main structure of the proposed contract. Proposed project consists of 150 wind turbines with a total nameplate capacity of 450 MWs with an anticipated full Commercial Operation Date of between June 30, 2014 but no later than November 30, 2016 with a term of 25 years from Commercial Operation Date.
The wind farm would be located approximately 11.5 miles east of Rehoboth Beach making landfall near or at Bethany Beach. The main interconnection point with the electric grid will be at the Indian River Interconnection Point.
DP&L has an obligation to purchase up to 300 MWs of energy in any given hour with a maximum cap of 1,357,402 MWhs annually.
Each MWh of energy will include the associated environmental attribute (e.g. Renewable Energy Credits).
The pricing below for the project products will be escalated at 2.5% per year after 2007:
* Base Capacity Payment Rate = $70.23 per kW-year
* Base Energy Rate = $98.93 per MWh
* Base Renewable Energy Credits Rate = $19.75 per REC
John Hutton, the energy secretary, will this week announce plans to build enough turbines to generate nearly half Britain’s current electricity consumption. He will open the whole of Britain’s continental shelf to development, apart from areas vital for shipping and fishing.The opinion that Bluewater Wind should build 200 turbines instead of 150 currently being negotiated seems rather modest by comparison. Which brings us to the next question: How much can the grid manage?
The production of wind power varies and is harder to forecast than the fluctuations in electricity demand. Adding large quantities of wind power to power systems is therefore challenging. The power system impacts of wind power were studied in international collaboration coordinated by VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland. The results indicate that the frequently stated claim of wind power requiring an equal amount of reserve power for back-up is not correct. A substantial adjustment tolerance is already built in to our power network, and the impacts of wind power fluctuations can beThe English version of the VTT working paper can be found here.
further balanced through a variety of measures.
With wind power penetrations amounting to 10—20% of the gross electricity demand, the additional costs (per MWh of wind power) arising from the balancing of wind power fluctuations are estimated to range between 1—4 EUR/MWh. This is less than 10% of the long-term market value of electricity.This by the way is far less than Delmarva Power's estimate of the cost of backup power. Professors Kempton and Firestone argue that a backup power source is not needed, and that the PSC and other agencies could decide to go ahead with wind power while giving the backup power issue more study.
Seven Northeast states signed an agreement in 2005 to cap, then reduce, anticipated pollution from all large power plants by 2019. Three others have since signed on to the effort, aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions linked to rising global temperatures.A program that imposes additional costs on carbon emissions would tip the scales in favor of wind power before the wind farm is even built. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative meets again on January 7, and could forward a proposal to the General Assembly early in the year. Stay tuned.
All of the states, including Delaware, plan to require producers to buy pollution rights by the ton starting next year. Companies are expected to add those costs to their prices, although most Delaware plants are "merchant" generators that sell their output into a regional supply grid.
Delmarva Power recently discussed in the media an estimated figure of more than $20 billion in relation to the cost of a proposed offshore wind farm and backup power generation facility in Delaware (The News Journal Sunday Perspective, Nov. 18).In response, I emailed Mr. Yingling:
This figure did not accurately explain the costs. We at Delmarva Power believe it is important to step forward and correctly clarify this figure on an important public issue.
Correctly stated, this figure represents the potential total cost of power supply for all Delmarva Power standard offer service in Delaware for 25 years -- rather than the total cost to customers for just the wind farm and a backup provider.
Of this total amount, Delmarva Power estimates that about $5 billion would go to Bluewater Wind to cover the cost of electricity from the wind farm. Another estimated $4 billion to $5 billion would pay for backup power supply for the times when wind is not sufficient to generate electricity.
The balance would cover the cost of electricity that Delmarva Power must buy through other arrangements to meet the rest of the power supply needs for standard offer service customers, because the wind farm and backup provider would only meet a portion of our customers' needs.
The projected monthly per-customer impact that Delmarva Power has cited in this matter still apply and remain unchanged.
Delmarva Power recognizes this mistake and appreciates the opportunity to clear up any confusion this may have caused.
William R. Yingling, Director of communications, Delmarva Power, Newark
I appreciate your willingness to publicly acknowledge a mistake in Delmarva's projected cost of wind power. The blizzard of numbers flying around has made it difficult for even the best informed observers to evaluate the costs and benefits of the proposed wind farm.After an initial reply in which he said he would look into my question, I got this response five days later:
I have two questions about the numbers cited in your letter:
First, as to the $5 billion you cite as the cost of electricity from the wind farm, can you tell me the cost per MWh (or KWh) used to estimate that overall cost?
Second, as to the $4 to 5 billion for backup power, is this the total cost of backup power or the difference between the cost of backup power and the cost of electricity if Delmarva continued to buy power as it currently does?
I was struck by the comments at the PSC meeting last week in seeking apples to apples numbers. Your openness in being willing to acknowledge an error should help us better understand the decision before us.
Dear Mr. Noyes,The Pace report is the one described by Jeremy Firestone as "not particularly transparent." (See my posts on the report, Part 1 and Part 2.) I consider myself better informed than most on this topic, and still have trouble making sense of Delmarva's numbers. Professor Firestone offered this simple way of understanding the numbers:
In response to your inquiry, I recommend that to get a full understand our position around our estimated cost of this proposed project to consumers you should refer you to the Delmarva Power website, http://www.delmarva.com/.
Under the section "Reports of Interest" you'll find reports from Pace Global Energy Services and ICF International analyzing the proposal.
I appreciate your interest in the subject and I thank you for your inquiry.
--- Bill Yingling
Multiply 22.5 by .24 (the proportion of load served by the project); you should get about the 5 billion.That was easy. The $5 billion is the total spent on wind power over the 25 years of the project, not the extra cost to ratepayers Delmarva Power likes to talk about.
We found that average household size (number of people in a household) in divorced households (households with divorced heads) was 27–41% smaller than married households (households with married heads) in 12 countries across the world around the year 2000 (between 1998 and 2002). If divorced households had combined to have the same average household size as married households, there could have been 7.4 million fewer households in these countries.Further, divorced households are less energy efficient:
In the United States (U.S.) in 2005, divorced households spent 46% and 56% more on electricity and water per person than married households. Divorced households in the U.S. could have saved more than 38 million rooms, 73 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, and 627 billion gallons of water in 2005 alone if their resource-use efficiency had been comparable to married households.If you're divorced and want to reduce your environmental impact, try a second marriage:
Furthermore, U.S. households that experienced divorce used 42–61% more resources per person than before their dissolution.
Remarriage of divorced household heads increased household size and reduced resource use to levels similar to those of married households. The results suggest that mitigating the impacts of resource-inefficient lifestyles such as divorce helps to achieve global environmental sustainability and saves money for households.Does Mother Nature really care if you acquire a new mother in law? According to the L. A. Times, the study's lead author points out that living together in any circumstances can produce the same environmental benefits:
"Turning on the light uses the same energy whether there are two people or four people in the room," said lead author Jianguo Liu, an ecologist at Michigan State University.
The extra electricity generation spews more carbon dioxide into the air, exacerbating global warming.
"If you don't want to get remarried, maybe move in with somebody you like," said Liu, who just celebrated his 20th wedding anniversary.
Other potential solutions include polygamy, communal living or roommates.
"I'm just a scientist trying to present the facts," Liu said. "I'm not promoting one way or another."
WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — Rarely, if ever, has a single intelligence report so completely, so suddenly, and so surprisingly altered a foreign policy debate here.Not that there aren't some still beating the war drums:
An administration that had cited Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons as the rationale for an aggressive foreign policy — as an attempt to head off World War III, as President Bush himself put it only weeks ago — now has in its hands a classified document that undercuts much of the foundation for that approach.
Perhaps a long overdue sense of realism is sinking in:
There are still hawks in the administration, Vice President Dick Cheney chief among them, who view Iran with deep suspicion. But for now at least, the main argument for a military conflict with Iran — widely rumored and feared, judging by antiwar protesters that often greet Mr. Bush during his travels — is off the table for the foreseeable future.
As Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, put it, the intelligence finding removes, “if nothing else, the urgency that we have to attack Iran, or knock out facilities.” He added: “I don’t think you can overstate the importance of this.”
After all, the first two wars on Mr. Bush’s watch remain unresolved at best.
It is clear that Obama purposefully wants to preserve ambiguity about his religious preferences. If he wanted to clearly indicate that he is a Christian, he would have adopted a *CHRISTIAN* name instead of the overtly *MUSLIM* "Barack Hussein". There is a long biblically sanctioned tradition of heathens changing their names upon becoming followers of Christ (particularly if their original names are offensive), for example Simon->Peter, Saul->Paul. So there is a lot of legitimacy in questioning Obama's religious proclivities.Does the Christian faith require new members to change their name upon becoming members? Most churches do not.