House Democratic Leaders Call for a Vote
State representatives Bob Gilligan and Helene Keeley write to the controller general:
DELAWARE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESMeanwhile, over in the Senate, Harris McDowell yesterday held the second on his hearings on reason why we shouldn't do the wind power deal. As the News Journal reports, the invited speakers at the hearing told McDowell what he wanted to hear:
HOUSE MINORITY CAUCUS
February 13, 2008
Russell T. Larson
Controller General
Office of the Controller General
Dover D580A
Dear Russ,
It has been almost two months since leaders from four state agencies tabled a proposal to bring wind power to Delaware. We, the leadership from the House Democratic Caucus, ask you to please reconvene the meetings on wind power with leadership from each of the caucuses in the General Assembly. It is time that wind power is brought to a vote.
In the final months of 2007, when our leadership group first began to discuss wind power, you felt that there were too many uncertainties to move forward. Since the tabling of the vote on December 18th, legislative leaders have had ample time to talk to their constituents and do their research. This research shows that Delaware has a once in a lifetime opportunity to lead the nation on wind power. Not only will wind turbines off our coast bring at least 500 new jobs to our state, but Bluewater Wind’s parent company, Babcock & Brown, has committed to making Delaware the regional hub for offshore wind development and maintenance. In a time when the economy is faltering, it would be irresponsible of us not to strongly consider a project that would bring jobs to our state. Our research also indicates that Delawareans overwhelmingly support windpower. Now that it is clear to everyone that wind power would be a positive asset to Delaware, a vote is needed.
This much needed vote should be made before the legislature returns to session. Once we return to Dover, wind power will likely consume much of our time, and while it is a very important issue, there are many important issues currently facing the state. We hope we can get together via conference call again, so that we can discuss a path forward for wind power. If we move quickly, we can make our decision and then the four agencies can reconvene and approve this before March 11th.
In Delaware, we stand by our motto, “It’s good to be first.” Let’s remind ourselves how good it really is to be first by moving forward with wind power. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. We look forward to working with you at our next meeting and voting in favor of a bright, green future for Delaware.
Sincerely,
Robert F. Gilligan
House Minority Leader
Helene M. Keeley
House Minority Whip
Delaware could trim a huge share of its energy needs and bills with a systematic push for conservation and efficiency, potentially wiping out the need for major new electricity supplies, a Senate panel was told Wednesday.This is what McDowell has been saying for a year. It's music to Delmarva Power's ears.
posted by Tom Noyes at 6:51 AM
5 Comments:
On one hand Pepco and NRG are retiring units rather than invest in pollution controls. On the other hand they push "smart meters" which they want to pass on the costs to you the consumer for the meter at $5/month. Now, enter the 20% renewable energy requirement at another $4 month. Its another Enron, create a shortage, and drive up consumer costs.
Copeland and McDowell need to pick resign from Senate or the SEU.
We'll also be looking at a 'tax' from the CO2 offset on pollutors. We will pay for it by an increase in our bills.
Why can't credits be transferred from a clean Delaware utility like wind directly to the CO2 'tax'?
Why can't the leaders around here look for the best overall deal for the consumer? We had to suffer the de-reg and its recent increases. We want the break to go our way this time around.
There's no need to engineer a transfer of credits or other price mechanism to realize the economic benefits of wind over coal as carbon controls are imposed.
The greater the portion of our energy that comes from wind or other true renewable sources, the less we pay in a carbon tax or higher costs created by a cap and trade system.
This is why we shouldn't accept the 20 percent renewable portfolio standard as a ceiling. We should see it as a minimum that can and should be exceeded.
The greater the portion of our energy that comes from wind or other true renewable sources, the less we pay in a carbon tax or higher costs created by a cap and trade system.
*
is it a state to state payout for cap and trade?
As John Cleveland, of the Global Warming Action Alliance, recently said: "Being less bad is not being good".
I'm all for as much conservation and efficiency as we can implement; but as long as we don't conserve our way back to ZERO, we're still stuck with an enormous mess of dirty power, delivering whatever reduced amount of power we demand. Until we transform that power portfolio, we will not make the drastic emissions reductions that we need.
One more point, on the issue of "free market" solutions: when the prices we pay for power tell the full "ecological truth" (Lester Brown), then we can use the free market. Until that time, the externalized portion of the costs for such things as coal, oil, natgas, and nuclear will make them seem a lot cheaper than they really are. No more apples vs. oranges, DPL!
Post a Comment
<< Home