Thanks to Tommywonk for steering us in this direction.

Delmarva seems not to be the solution to our energy crises. They seem to be the problem. When blasted by both NRG and Blue Water Wind for their recalcitrance on this issue, something seriously stinks.

One would expect that as opposing bidders that NRG and Delmarva would be at each other’s throats, in a bidding war of sorts with our states economical future at stake. Instead, they are tied up dealing with Delmarva, who systematically denies that long term contracts benefit Delawareans, a view supported by Charlie Copeland, a whispered republican aspirant to the state’s governorship.

The Public Service Commission (PSC) stated in a letter dated 12/13/2006:

As you are also aware, in developing the IRP, the statue states that Delmarva may consider the economic and environmental of:

resources that use new or innovative technologies, (such as coal gasifications).

resources that provide short or long term benefits to residents of this state (such as renewable sources like wind and solar power).

facilities that utilize existing brownfield or industrial sites.

resources that promote fuel diversity.

resources that support or improve reliability; or

resources that encourage price stability.

In reviewing the IRP, it is at best unclear whether Delmarva considered the value of these items. It is the staff’s belief that additional information was generated by Delmarva or its consultant, ICF, which was not included in the IRP materials submitted to the Commission.

Delmarva’s dance around the issue is here.

Apparently appalled by this blatant disregard for either state or consumer input into this upcoming decision, seven parties petitioned to intervene.

Division of Public Advocate

Delaware Sustainable Energy Task Force

NRG Energy

Bluewater Wind

Jeremy Firestone–University of Delaware Professor

Alan Muller— with Green Delaware

Mary McGonegal–with Common Cause of Delaware

The Mexican Clinical Audiologist (let me know if you catch the pun) O’brien allowed only six of these seven requesting input. Who was “dis’ed”? The Public Advocate Office was denied input, despite of Delaware law 29 Del.C. 8716 (g) calling for the Advocate’s Office to

be deemed a party of interest, and (it) shall have full power to present evidence, subpoena, cross examine witnesses, submit proofs, file briefs, and do other acts appropriate for a party to do before the Commission.

Well it is obvious why they didn’t want them there………..

And then:

“Dr. Firestone, Mr. Muller, and Ms. McGonegal should confer with each other, and advise me (the Mexican clinical audiologist) with the March 7th filing in this case, who their lead representative will be.

The three citizens groups were lumped together as one, and both Jeremy Firestone, and Alan Muller appealed that decision by the Mexican clinical audiologist, contending that the differences between these varied citizens groups was far more diverse than the differences between individual energy providers, yet they were allowed their own representation.

Why? because O’brien thinks that Common Cause, Green Delaware, and a University of Delaware Professor all have congruent interests in the IRP. For those of us aware of what these groups stand for, this is laughable. I can only think, that because these diverse groups of personalities, (not to mention agendas), are being lumped together as one voice, that someone higher up, is directly interfering with every Delawares citizens’ right to have valid input into the decision making process.

What is at stake, primarily is Delmarva’s refusal to look at options regarding long term supply. If they looked at it, they did in name only, picking up a few pages for a glance. ( “Sure, we looked at it.” )

Dr Firestone takes them to task.

Instead of approaching the possibility of entering into long term contracts with its eyes wide opened, as it should in an IRP, Delmarva approached that possibility with blinders on. Indeed, it appears that Delmarva took on the IRP not as an objective broker, but rather with an agenda that at its core is centered on Delmarva’s desire not to enter into long term contracts………..It is not Delmarva’s prerogative to simply brush aside the Legislature.

NRG goes one step further.

There should be incredible irony, not lost to the Commission, with Delmarva arguing, in both the IRP and RFP proceedings, against making long term commitments with baseload energy suppliers– and citing to RSCI customers’ low load factors as reason for its justification– WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE COMMISSION, UNDER THE COVER OF A SEPARATELY DOCKETED PROCEEDING, TO INITIATE A MASSIVE INVESTMENT PROGRAM TO IMPROVE THESE LOAD FACTORS.

In a deliciously sarcastic comment, accidental or otherwise, NRG offers the Commission this assessment of Delmarva’s competence (or impotence) in determining public policy.

The Commission should consider retaining outside independent experts to review the specifics of Delmarva’s DSM and AMI plans. Nothing should be approved in the absence of a benefit-cost study and independent modeling.

In a rare case of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” Bluewater Wind joins NRG to take Delmarva to task along these same lines. More specific is Bluewater’s criticism of Delmarva’s draft of its IRP.

The draft plan fails to diversify energy sources. The draft plan ignores the trend of higher and more volatile natural gas prices. The draft IRP fails to protect Delaware rate payers from the cost of carbon dioxide pollution.

What is needed, Bluewater continues, is a better plan. One that achieves greater price stability, which would include the following:

Proactive steps to secure sources that protect rate payers from rising electricity prices.

Proactive steps to secure sources that protect rate payers from future costs of carbon pollution regulations.

Promote new generation sources in those locations that minimize the need for new, expensive, hard-to-site transmission lines to or within Delaware.

Set more aggressive goals for efficiency.

Obviously both corporations are looking out for their own best interests. But it looks like the PSC picked the wrong group of people to do the evaluation when it chose Delmarva. Bluewater’s goals, as mentioned above, are more in line with what both the PSC and the Legislature require.

Doesn’t it make sense that the company whose best interest seems to lie in line with our own best interests, would serve our state far better than another company, such as Delmarva, whose best interest is diametrically opposed what we want?

Like a car with sticky brakes, as long as we depend on Delmarva, this state will never get up to speed. (Remember here, we are talking about the only corporation IN THE WORLD, who did not take Y2K seriously at this millenena’s outset, and sent out those ridiculous bills on January 00 . Everyone else, ON THIS PLANET, fixed it.)

The Anti-Delawarean Company