You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Robert L. Venables’ category.

From Nancy at Delaware Way, we have info regarding the vote today.  The House committee overseeing this bill, cleared it by a 7-1 vote.

The Speaker of the House has offered a new amendment...  This allows for the Bond Bill Committee formerly known as the JOINT COMMITTEE ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT, to oversee the bill, and report back to both chambers with its recommendation.   Both chambers will then vote, and if the Governor approves, it gets signed into law.

Who is on the Bond Committee?  The following people:

Sen. Robert Venables (Chair)
Sen. Brian J. Bushweller
Sen. Bethany Hall-Long
Sen. David P.Sokola
Sen. Colin R. J. Bonini
Sen. Gerald W. Hocker

Rep.Quinn Johnson (Co-Chair)
Rep. Helene M. Keeley
Rep. Michael P. Mulrooney
Rep. Dennis E. Williams
Rep. Michael Ramone
Rep. David L. Wilson

Out of this list we have the following people who voted against the bill when it was in the Senate….

Sen. Robert Venables (Chair)

Sen. Brian J. Bushweller

Sen. Colin R. J. Bonini

Sen. Gerald W. Hocker

Known sponsors are….

Rep. Helene M. Keeley

Rep. Michael P. Mulrooney

Sen. Bethany Hall-Long

Sen. David P.Sokola

We have 4 for, and 4 against, and 4 still thinking.  If it goes along party lines, the vote will fall as a tie. 6 to 6.

Alan Levin has expressed concern that the bill not pass the General Assembly because doing so might jeopardize the deal.

The Schwartzkopf Amendment might cause just such a non-passage….

For this bill to pass, we must count on the House, where there are sufficient votes, to defeat the Schwartzkopf Amendment, and then pass the bill as approved by committee straight from the Senate.  It can then go to the governor’s desk,….. where…..

.

Advertisements

Many of the areas hit by the storm had also been hit by Irene. In New Jersey’s Hamilton Township, Tom Jacobsen also recalled heavy spring flooding and a particularly heavy winter before that.

“I’m starting to think we really ticked off Mother Nature somehow, because we’ve been getting spanked by her for about a year now,” he said while grabbing some coffee at a convenience store…..

OF COURSE YOU DID, DUMMY. YOU VOTED FOR REPUBLICANS!

Duffy is God’s answer to a prayer.. I miss the old days of blogging when we were debating principals instead of people… Duffy has stuck to the old line of debating principals with facts, and that is what makes him special in the eyes of bloggers everywhere…

Since the passing of Steve Newton, he has been the only one to challenge me in any argument, and usually some pretty good stuff comes out of both sides during the exchange… I have respected that.. Cause once again, opinions mean dick. Facts are what we steer by.. It is my hope that in responding to his challenge that an answer may make itself apparent.. Who knows? It may not come from me… But if I’m the catalyst for bringing it out in the open, then… none of this was in vain..

Why I like to debate Duffy is simple.. Neither side, he or I, is concretely set in their opinions… We accept it when the other side makes sense… I usually go into such debates having no idea where they’ll end up… I hope the rest of you enjoy the ride as welI….

That said..

Duffy leads: Wall Street’s problems were caused by Fannie and Freddie loaning money to people they knew couldn’t pay and moreover, forcing banks to lend money to people who couldn’t pay. That was not deregulation but misregulation

kavips rebutt’s:Uh… Mr. President. That’s not entirely accurate.

First off, the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was developed for, and locked in on, urban developmental areas and had no part of the subprime boom, which primarily occurred out in western desert regions where owning 4 to 5 investment homes was normal… Those homes were overwhelmingly funded by loan originators NOT SUBJECT to the act… We all know the crises was not because people couldn’t afford a payment on their house. It came about, because with no occupants, people could not afford the payments of 4 to 5 houses….. Instead of one loan per borrower turning up in default; four to five were.
Investment Homes lead forclosures not inner city Residences

Second off, The housing bubble reached its point of maximum inflation in 2005.
The Housing Bubble Starts to Dive in 2005
Courtesy of NYT

Third off, During those exact same years, Fannie and Freddie were sidelined by Congressional pressure, and saw a sharp drop in their share of loans secured by the Feds… Follow the dotted line on the very bottom of the graph…
Freddie and Fannie on the lowest line
Courtesy of NYT

Fourth off; During those exact same years, private secures, like Delaware’s own AIG, grabbed the lions share of the market.
Private, not Public Insurers Caused the Crash
Courtesy of NYT

Remember these graphs for later on when I discuss the results of deregulation, versus regulation… But like it or not, these graphs conclusively show that private insurers, who thanks to Marie Evans, we now know were deregulated by Phil Gramm in the 2000 Omnibus Bill, were the primary cause of the worlds financial collapse.. Probably put best by these words of AIG’s spokesperson, who when asked why they didn’t have sufficient funds to cover losses, said point blank, “We were deregulated. We were no laws requiring us to keep any funds, ..so we spent it…”

Duffy leads: The loosely regulated hedge funds escaped this mess largely unscathed. Why? They can’t count on a bailout like the big banks. The Too Big To Fail banks were counting on a bailout (not unlike the S&L bailouts which started on the Republican’s watch) and they got them.

kavips rebutt’s:Uh… Mr. President. That’s not entirely accurate. I agree that the hedge funds did survive better than the banks. Not because of bailouts, but because they sold short during the crises and made billions while firms closed and people got thrown out of work. There is nothing wrong with that; I did the same. In fact close readers may remember my warnings that the crises was impending almost a year earlier. Very close readers may remember my telling them exactly when to sell, and at what point the stock market would rebound… I must say: I called it rather well. 🙂

“Hedge funds were not in my understanding, at fault in the credit crisis,” said David Ruder, former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. “At the most what they did was to sell securities when some of their investments were declining and they needed to have liquid funds. They were not the architects of these problems.”

De regulated hedge funds are not the issue… De-regulated, excessively leveraged, mortgage securities, are a different story however… They, not the banks that held them, are the cause of the crises…Years from now, when academics search for causes of the stock market crash of 2008, they will focus on the pivotal role of mortgage-backed securities. These exotic financial instruments allowed a downturn in U.S. home prices to morph into a contagion that brought down Bear Stearns a year ago this month – and more recently have brought the global banking system to its knees.

Where you err is when you state that banks too big to fail, assumed they would be bailed out… By implication, you say imply they failed from squandering money, and wanted the bailouts.. But your tax dollars didn’t flow directly to the bottom line.

The roughly $200 billion the Treasury Department has handed out to battered banks was swapped for a special class of stock that pays a 5 percent dividend (rising to 9 percent after five years.) As of April 15, the Treasury had collected about $2.5 billion in dividend payments on its investment.

So in that sense, the bailout money represents an expense for banks. That’s one reason a number of banks have said they want to give the money back as soon as possible.

You say big banks were counting on a bailout, and they got them? That didn’t happen to these banks. New Mexico, Georgia, and Florida each lost a bank just last Friday. That brings to 8, the number of banks failed in June. Unfortunately if a bank is failing, it can’t bet on itself to fail, as can a hedge fund.

Duffy leads: Banks have successfully lobbied to get their losses absorbed by taxpayers and gains are kept private. How nice for them. They felt comfortable making insane gambles because they knew they’d be bailed out. Most of them were right. Also remember that it was Bill Clinton who tore down the wall between retail and investment banking. The idea was to give banks more stability as they typically perform as exact opposites in bull and bear markets. (FWIW, I think that was a good idea and I can tell you first hand that two of the Fortune 100 banks I worked for were carried by retail banking in bear years. They may not have had bonuses those years but they didn’t have layoffs either)

kavips rebutt’s:Uh… Mr. President. That’s not entirely accurate. The idea is that the banks made bad decisions knowing taxpayers would bail them out is the issue that is inaccurate. For the record, I have no qualms that it was the Clinton legacy who tore down the wall between banks and investment banking. Like you, I feel it was a good idea to do so… Again the problem was not primarily with banks making loans to people who could not pay.. Although, it was as late as October 2009, when I was made aware of one private Bank in Denver still exaggerating income to make loans look good enough on paper to get approval of securitization. What caused the collapse was the leveraging of those loans as securities, so that as the housing market became overextended, and the ARM jumped past the low cost opening years, the damage was 100 times worse because of leveraging. What made the collapse criminal, was that the insurance most financial institutions had bought from AIG, to cover such an improbable event, had already spent by that companies executives, out on bonuses to themselves. What made it doubly criminal, was that when they received government dollars through a taxpayer bailout, those same executives assumed it was to first go towards paying their bonuses again. However, very recent events may give some cover to the argument that some collusion was implicit in the bailing out of Goldman Sacs and AIG… Basically, once bailed out, AIG paid Goldman Sacs for shares twice as much as they were worth. The documents also indicate that regulators ignored recommendations from their own advisers to force the banks to accept losses on their A.I.G. deals and instead paid the banks in full for the contracts.

El Somnambulo on Delaware Liberal announces that Bob Venables and others are preparing to propose a Marriage Protection Act: SB 27… This will limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a women..

Once again, Bob and his group are more worried about protecting their own assholes, than they are about the needs of their constituents…

Their priorities are ass backwards… When you can show me protection all children abused in heterosexual marriages, when you can show me protection for all women beaten on a regular bases in heterosexual messages, when you can show me a plummeting divorce rate especially in heterosexual marriages, then heterosexual marriage might sound like an institution worthy of protection…

But it until then, in their twisted moralism, they are serving to protect child abuse, wife beating, and painful divorce ….

Living in their cultist enclaves may make them unaware of how the rest of the world lives.. We think it is time they stop worrying about other people’s vaginas and assholes and instead focus ….. on helping people.

lol.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

144th GENERAL ASSEMBLY

HOUSE Bill NO. 361

REQUIRING THE CONTROLLER GENERAL VOTE TO APPROVE THE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN BLUEWATER WIND AND DELMARVA POWER WITHOUT WAITING FOR CONFIRMATION FROM THE SENATE, NOR AWAITING A VOTE OF APPROVAL FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.



WHEREAS, House Bill 6 of the 143rd General Assembly (the Electric Utility Retail Customer Supply Act of 2006), signed into law by the Governor on April 6, 2006, establishes a process for procuring a new energy source based in Delaware; and

WHEREAS, House Bill 6 set forth the criteria for selecting a new energy generating source, including the cost-effectiveness of the project in producing energy price stability, reduced environmental impact, the benefits of adopting new and emerging technology, siting feasibility and the terms and conditions concerning the sale of energy output from such facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Public Service Commission, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Energy Office and the Controller General were given authority under House Bill 6 to select a bidder; and
WHEREAS, the Request for Proposal issued under House Bill 6 established a competitive process in which three proposals for power were submitted, an IGCC coal power facility, a new natural gas facility and an offshore wind power facility, all of which were reviewed and evaluated; and
WHEREAS, on May 22, 2007, the Public Service Commission, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Energy Office and the Controller General directed that Delmarva Power enter into negotiations with Bluewater Wind to build an offshore wind power facility in Delaware, and to submit a term sheet outlining the major provisions of an agreement; and

WHEREAS, on November 20, 2007, the Public Service Commission, Office of Management and Budget, the Energy Office and the Office of the Controller General held a hearing on the Bluewater Wind term sheet and directed Delmarva Power and Bluewater Wind to submit a Power Purchase Agreement for consideration on December 18, 2007; and

WHEREAS, the negotiations that were held between November 20, 2007, and December 10, 2007, resulted in a more favorable agreement from the perspective of Delmarva residential ratepayers than was embodied in the term sheet; and

WHEREAS, the negotiations have produced a Power Purchase Agreement to build and operate in Delaware the nation’s first offshore wind power facility; and
WHEREAS, the Public Service Commission staff report finds that the Power Purchase Agreement meets the criteria established by House Bill 6, including price stability, reduced environmental impact, and the use of new technology; and
WHEREAS, operation of the proposed offshore wind farm would provide jobs for Delawareans and make Delaware a leader in a new industry at a time when manufacturing jobs are disappearing; and
WHEREAS, construction of the proposed offshore wind power facility would make a significant contribution to a reduction in greenhouse gas and toxic pollution emissions; and
WHEREAS, citizens of Delaware have offered thousands of comments and letters in favor of the proposed wind power facility; and
WHEREAS, the Public Service Commission, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Energy Office and the Controller General did not act on the Power Purchase Agreement because of the lack of a consensus among the four entities; and
WHEREAS, approval of the Power Purchase Agreement would endow Delmarva Power’s customers with protection against future price increases and price volatility due to the rising cost of electricity produced from fossil fuels and international political uncertainties.

WHEREAS, the Delawarean House of Representatives on April 11th approved in a non-partisan vote by a margin of 25 to 11, HCR38, which recommends that the Controller General add his signature, along side of the others, to the Power Purchase Agreement agreed to by both Delmarva and Bluewater Wind.

WHEREAS, all members of the House of Representatives currently serving have been elected within the past span of two years, and all who wishing to be re-elected, must face public scrutiny this election season, their vote can be deemed more representative of Delaware’s needs then those of the Senate, with two thirds of its members NOT up for re-election this term.

WHEREAS, House Bill 6 of the 143rd General Assembly (the Electric Utility Retail Customer Supply Act of 2006), signed into law by the Governor on April 6, 2006, gives the Controller General the authority to act independently of the Senate when making his decision, and does not require him to be beholden to one member, or a small group of member’s narrow interests.

WHEREAS, Delaware Code Title 29, Chapter 11, Subchapter 10, gives the Controller General the authority to perform any analyses necessary, to determine operational efficiency and effectiveness, compliance with the laws of Delaware and legislative intent; the Delaware House of Representatives has determined by a vote of 25-11 on April 11th, 2008, exactly how that legislative intent behind House Bill 06 of the 143rd Legislative Session, should be interpreted by the Controller General.

NOW THEREFORE:
BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Representatives of the 144th General Assembly of the State of Delaware, that it is the binding resolution of the General Assembly that even without the Legislative Council’s approval, the Controller General shall vote to approve the Power Purchase Agreement between Bluewater Wind and Delmarva Power because, in the opinion of the majority of the General Assembly, the proposed wind power facility meets the criteria established by House Bill 6 of the 143rd General Assembly and is in the best interests of the citizens of this State;


SYNOPSIS

This Concurrent Resolution requires that the Controller General vote to approve the Power Purchase Agreement between Bluewater Wind and Delmarva Power because, in the opinion of the majority of the General Assembly, the proposed Power Purchase Agreement meets the criteria set forth in House Bill 6 of the 143rd General Assembly and is in the best interests of the citizens of this State. This Concurrent Resolution further requests that the Public Service Commission may at some later time, determine if the costs for the Bluewater Wind contract should be distributed among all Delmarva Power customers.

Wind power for Dummies

Myths and Mothballs:

There are several myths out there that need debunked in order to have a clear understanding of offshore wind.

We will start with the first which goes right to the heart of why we have a handful of legislators blocking Bluewater from going through.

For reference here is the copy of the Act that started it all. If you could, click in and check out the co-sponsors of that bill. More about them later.

What about SEU as an option to drive down demand and lower prices?

Many answers to your questions can be found here, in the report to Governor Minner that predated the passage of House Bill 6, the EURCSA. The clarity of the report, ie how well it was written, can be demonstrated by the signing by the Governor on the day the act cleared the last hurdle in the General Assembly. In other words, after reading this comprehensive report, there were no other questions. Essentially this report is the equivalent of a State of the State Address on Energy Affairs, and until now, has been seen by only a handful of people.

First some background. One can understand Delmarva’s motives better if one understands how they get paid. Here is how their price structure works. There are different costs depending on which fuels are used. Nuclear is cheapest, although offshore wind may be a close second, then comes coal, and finally natural gas. Under current PJM rules (the local grid which sets both pricing and the rules for that pricing) the price that is set for the next hours fuel, is based on the price of the last bid that meets the demand set for that hour.

Let’s say the hour’s demand is anticipated to be 600 MW’s. Nuclear provides 300MW quite cheaply, and coal provides 275 at slightly more. There is still a deficit of 25MW’s that need to be acquired to meet the goal set. Gas bids on the remaining 25MW’s and since that is the bid that pushes it over the top, that is the price for all energy from all sources for that hour. That means gas gets a fair profit. Coal and nuclear get a windfall of tremendous profit since they cost far less than gas to generate electricity.

Back in the olden days, under regulation, nuclear was guaranteed a fair profit, coal was guaranteed a fair profit, and likewise gas, based on the costs of both fuel and operating expenses. You added those up together, and you get cheaper than we pay now.

Energy Prices Before and After Deregulation
Imagine standing in a line at Wal*Mart where the rules dictated that whatever the last person paid for everything in his cart, everyone else paid. Of course if someone was buying a box of tissues, we with full shopping carts would hand our receipts to the door checker while smiling….real big. But imagine if Wal*Mart got to determine who was the last person to stand in that line? Incredibly they would always placed someone with the most expensive items they could find to shore up that cart…..Bet you that tissue buyer wasn’t smiling this time as he left the store?

Again before deregulation, if our price was based more on old style economics, Delmarva got a percentage over whatever was its cost for making our electricity…..So with deregulation, we lost out.

Along with deregulation came the divestiture by Delmarva of all its generating producing facilities. Connectiv kept them, and Delmarva became nothing more than a broker. Before deregulation we paid lower costs because Delmarva actually produced and charged us cost plus percentage, which was closely regulated by the Public Service Commission. Now for all our electrical needs, we pay whatever the high price of gas determines, no matter where our energy would come from…including wind farms in Pennsylvania. Even though that wind farm might generate energy at 2.3 cents per MW, we would still have to pay the frozen winter spiked gas price of 23 cents per MW, with someone within the PJM grid keeping the difference. That by the way is why Stockbridge insists on Pennsylvania wind farms.

Bluewater would change all that. Under contract Bluewater Wind would supply a regulated rate to Delmarva, one regulated for twenty five years. This rate would not be manipulated by the PJM. This means Delmarva over the course of twenty five years could stand to lose billions, which of course would then remain right in our wallets where, since we are the ones paying them,… it belongs.

Trust me. Delmarva still stands to make a lot on selling us Bluewater’s Wind. They just can’t gouge us as much as they had anticipated once deregulation took effect. How much do they intend to raise prices? Just look at the 59% increase in 06 if you want proof for your answer. Which is why Delmarva is acting like a recalcitrant groom who pines for his future bride’s booty, without having to commit to anything in order to get it.

A third issue that forces up our rates, is interestingly enough, our geography. We are Delmarva, a long skinny peninsula with few transmission access points. Compared to a land-based market with thousands of interconnecting points surrounding it, we have but a few. That adds costs because a lot of energy is taken up and lost as heat. As much as 7 to 10 percent of electricity is lost over transmission. Since our peninsula has lots of distance top to bottom, we lose a lot. This can be fixed with a generation facility off the coast of Rehoboth. Supplying the Middle of Delmarva with less cost and more efficiency, means at least for that sector, their overall cost could drop 7 to 10 percent. That means a household paying $200 a month in summer, will be paying $180 instead, just by cutting down on transmission costs. So instead of paying Delmarva, you can afford an additional 6 and a half gallons of gasoline…..Wow. (I’d still rather have it in gasoline.)

Thus there were three reasons prices jumped with deregulation. One, PJM uses the most expensive form of energy to price the whole lot; two, Delmarva became solely a broker, divesting its generating capacity; and three, our geography conspires against us in long transmission lines from the source to the power receiver.

So now we are ready for our question:

What about SEU as an option to drive down demand and lower prices?

What is the SEU and how does it have anything to do with energy prices? Here is a copy of the meeting minutes last February just as wind power was getting under way. Again, pay attention to the list of players near the top. Who was that new member? A test will be given at the end…….

On principal the SEU is a good idea.

Just to Show You Saving On Demand is Not Just Chump Change

By making several technological boosts thorough out every household or small business in Delaware, the demand, or the amount of energy required to be supplied to Delaware, will be reduced. This is good for cutting down the amount of energy and green house gases, but does not have sufficient clout to pull down prices.

One could compare it to buying a Prius and hoping gasoline drops back to $2. As you use less, the price climbs higher so you are still paying the same to fill your tank, only now using less. Of course you would pay a lot more if you drove a 67 Camaro so there is some incentive for upgrading to a more efficient vehicle. But thinking that prices will always stay the same because of what we purchase, won’t happen. However if everyone follows suit, then some leverage can indeed be made on price, as actually happened during the nineties as cars became much more fuel efficient. Then some knucklehead came up with gas eating SUV’s. Why not? Gas was under a dollar. A fifty dollar fill-up? No problem.

The only thing that brings actual prices down when dealing with a monopoly is competition. Having Bluewater sell electricity using new technology at prices lower than that of Carbon fuels, with or without a Carbon tax in place, keeps the price lower on the supplier side. The best scenario for Delaware is to pursue both plans simultaneously. Build a wind farm off the coast, and provide energy efficient incentives to every Delawarean. Do both!

It is ironical that individual legislators who sponsor the SEU package, are the very ones holding up the Bluewater deal, which provides the same benefit to Delaware consumers: lower energy bills, less carbon dioxide, less toxic pollution.

A one-two punch using two types of technologies would go a long way to insulate Delaware from the tidal wave of Carbon fueled high prices.

Our states long term goal, needs to include both cutting down our usage, or demand for energy, and for what little energy needs we have leftover, supply them with as much offshore wind as is possible.

We have this ideal scenario almost in the palm of our hand with only a handful of legislators blocking the way………….

You may have read this from the Federal Report titled “The Cost of Holding Back the Sea.” The following shows us the national cost of doing just that. These costs are adjusted for a 1 meter rise.

Previous studies suggest that the expected global warming from the greenhouse effect could raise sea level 50 to 200 centimeters (2 to 7 feet) in the next century. This article presents the first nationwide assessment of the primary impacts of such a rise on the United States: (1) the cost of protecting ocean resort communities by pumping sand onto beaches and gradually raising barrier islands in place; (2) the cost of protecting developed areas along sheltered waters through the use of levees (dikes) and bulkheads; and (3) the loss of coastal wetlands and undeveloped lowlands. The total cost for a one meter rise would be $270-475 billion, ignoring future development.

We estimate that if no measures are taken to hold back the sea, a one meter rise in sea level would inundate 14,000 square miles, with wet and dry land each accounting for about half the loss. The 1500 square kilometers (600-700 square miles) of densely developed coastal lowlands could be protected for approximately one to two thousand dollars per year for a typical coastal lot. Given high coastal property values, holding back the sea would probably be cost-effective.

The environmental consequences of doing so, however, may not be acceptable. Although the most common engineering solution for protecting the ocean coast–pumping sand–would allow us to keep our beaches, levees and bulkheads along sheltered waters would gradually eliminate most of the nation’s wetland shorelines. To ensure the long-term survival of coastal wetlands, federal and state environmental agencies should begin to lay the groundwork for a gradual abandonment of coastal lowlands as sea level rises

EPA Chart Showing National Cost of Sea Level Rise

The report comes with his warning.

“Sea level rise is an urgent issue for coastal environmental planners for the very reason that it lacks urgency for some directors of public works. If state and local governments fail to develop plans to protect the coastal environment as the sea rises, the public will almost certainly call upon engineers to protect their homes in the years to come.”

So as we ignore the potential of having windmills blowing off our east side, we will be asked to pay increasingly more to fight back the sea. All this at a time when according to this man, we can least afford it.

As far as I know no one yet has tried to account for the additional cost required to build ourselves above oblivion, but in all fairness, that should be added to the Delmarva side of the ledger when it comes to debating just how much this proposed Wind Farm will cost us.

The answer…….ironically comes in the form of another question:

How much will NOT building an offshore wind farm……cost us?
.

Nancy informs us that the purpose of the infamous letter sent to Larson, ordering him to report back to Copeland so he may be instructed to vote the way Copeland wants him to, was to provide a check and a balance to this energy generative process. This would actually be a good tactic, if it were some sneaky land grab (eminent domain?) being performed in the darkness without oversight. But that is exactly what this is not.

What we are witnessing as we go forward with the Blue Water Wind proposal, is an extremely rare case where the People’s will, though public hearings and wide public support, actually triumphs over those wills of the special interests, in an event that has profound economic implication for every Delawarean man, woman, and child…..

Like roaches finding themselves exposed by the flick of a switch, the special interests are scurrying for cover in the light of public scrutiny. Imagine to your surprise, if in your kitchen, one roach stood up to you and said……”Aw, don’t mind us, ma’am………We were just checking your room over to insure it was immaculately clean. We are here to help you.”

If you were a columnist and worked for the News Journal, you just might believe that little bugger. But most discerning minds would remain skeptical. As equally skeptical as if they heard this from a representative ordering the controller to get his marching orders from him……..

“”We ought to let private investors compete against one another to get us the best price point and price stability. I think the marketplace would do that better than some regulatory regime,” Copeland said. He said he wants to make sure low-income residents can afford wind power.”

Copeland doesn’t know what he is talking about. Notice how his statements of fact always begin with the phrase “I think”? Well, I hate to break to you Charlie, but we really do not care WHAT YOU THINK. We care what the evidence supports. Every criminal says he is innocent. But if the preponderance of the evidence is against him, than twelve impartial jurors pronounce him guilty…..

Let us examine evidence that supports his following statement.

“I think the marketplace would do that better than some regulatory regime,”

Let’s go personal…I won’t answer this one;….it is for you the reader to decide…..Do you prefer the Charlie Copeland’s vision of deregulated, marketplace driven rates we pay today, or the regulated rates that existed before May 2006? Be honest now…

Secondly, lets see what deregulation has done next door in Maryland. Remember “deregulation” is Copeland’s mantra. For those of you who do not know, Maryland pulled a Delaware on June 1st, 2007 and their rates jumped 50%. (Can anyone tell me why, since we buy off the same grid, that Delmarva passed on to us a 60% increase, and Maryland only pays 50%? Who is pocketing the extra 10%? …….Charlie???) Here is a nice page provided by the Baltimore Sun with 37 links that give one a good overview of how Copeland’s type of deregulation is faring in actual practice. Don’t take my word for it, here are a few examples. I dare you to find anyone over there right now who echoes, “”I think the marketplace would do that better than some regulatory regime.”

Gov. Martin O’Malley asked the Public Service Commission yesterday to investigate whether the wholesale rates for electricity in Maryland exceed federal standards for reasonableness, echoing an action in Illinois that helped lead to a $1 billion rate rebate for customers there

Why did Copeland not write this type of a letter if he were truly concerned about poor persons affording electricity, especially since it was pointed out last May that Delmarva was charging far more than surrounding states? Instead he attacks the one hope that Delaware’s citizens have, to return energy prices back to normalcy? Hmmm. Is he really concerned about Delaware’s citizens?

Here is another one, this one affecting Pepco, the holding company of Delmarva Power.

Gov. Martin O’Malley said yesterday that eliminating the link between power companies’ profits and the amount of energy they distribute – a plan recently approved for Pepco, the Washington-area utility – could be one of the most effective strategies for reducing electricity bills across Maryland”

It becomes obvious that Delmarva, due precisely to the weak regulatory power of this state, is the profit cash cow for the entire Pepco holding company, who is being severly regulated elsewhere to charge less then excessive rates to our neighbors. We pay higher rates then most, solely to increase Pepco’s profit margins, and help pay for executives bonuses.

Another commentary:

Gov. Martin O’Malley, questioning whether the relationship between BGE and its corporate parent has unfairly contributed to higher electric rates, has asked the Public Service Commission to hold expedited hearings on whether the company should be broken up and whether the utility’s 1.1 million customers should receive rebates.

I am really beginning to like this guy. I know Minner has no balls, but someone in this state could step up, don’t you think? Thank heavens we have John Kowolko.

Finally, in the argument between which is better, a regulated utility or one operating independently to maximize its profit, comes this nugget:

As a public utility, Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. is obligated to get the lowest price possible for customers. By contrast, its corporate owner, Constellation Energy Group, has a duty to stockholders to sell the power it produces for as much as it can get.”

This is the battle we face. 94 percent of Delaware wants to go forward with wind to get the lowest price possible for customers, especially if health, environmental, and insurance costs are factored in to the equation. Charlie Copeland wants to scuttle the Blue Water Wind proposal so that his client, Delmarva, can sell the power it produces for AS MUCH AS IT CAN.

So there you have it. In Charlie’s own words, he thinks “I think the marketplace would do that better than some regulatory regime.”

Right Charlie, you still don’t get it. We are concerned with OUR interests, not Delmarva’s. Duh.

Charlie Copeland’s and Harris McDowells famous antiwind letter was written on September 12.

On September 30th, GM announce they had no plans for production at the Boxwood plant.

Connection?

No, but energy costs are a clear cost of business.  If the Blue Water Wind package dies on the birthing table, then all electric rate for businesses wanting to move into Delaware, will be higher than those in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia.  So why would a business move here?

However, if the Blue Water Wind deal goes through with no constraints, then our elecricity costs become one of the lowest in the nation.  Why would a business not want to move here?

Delaware needs to position itself competitively against all other locations.  We have market location to our advantage.  We have real estate costs to our advantage.  We have educational resources,  University of Delaware, to our advantage.  We have quality of life, Rehoboth Beach, to our advantage.  What we do not have currently, is cheap energy.  Delmarva buys the same energy off the grid like every other state, and charges us way too much for it.

Here is why Chrysler is leaving.  Here is why GM is leaving……..You can’t make money in Delaware.

Were Delaware to have the nation’s first giant windfarm,  pumping kilowatts at a low 2.3 cents cost,  those dynamics could change.  Just bringing the wind farm to Delaware would pump a much needed 1.5 billion into our local economy.   Consistently providing cheap energy, would provide another.

It is against this backdrop that one must shake ones head at Copeland & Other’s attempt to stop Blue Water Wind from going through.  Why would any elected official, want so badly to screw Delaware over?

If Delaware’s economy collapses, it will stem solely from this group of legislators who have one loyalty and one loyalty only.  Delmarva.

Fortunately they are a small group.  They can be overruled, voted out, and rendered quite insignificant.

What is significant, is whether we can get Blue Water Wind on line in time to keep GM and Chrysler from leaving for good.

The PSC should again give the public an opportunity to voice their opinion……and just like the last hearings in spring 07, thousands of the public will do so!  After that, who gives a damn what Copeland & Co.  thinks……..

We need to move fast before Copeland, McDowell, Hocker, Lavelle, Plant, Venables, and Valihura, cause another large business to pull up stakes and leave………………

Ring wraiths have invaded Delaware. They were seen trying to stop the benefits from Blue Water’s Wind farm from ever reaching the hard working citizens of Delaware.

They came to kill the windfarm, which will drop and keep Delaware’s price for electricity at roughly 10 cents a killowatt hour for the next twenty five years, instead of the 18 to 28 cents that our neighbors will have to fork out……..They rode in to do so because their client, Delmarva Power, the same entity you now pay 60% more for your services, will stand to take exponentially much more from your checkbook if they charge you their markup on a fluctuating 28 cents, instead of the cooly negotiated 10 cents…..That’s it.

If you do not know what a ring wraith is, research it. I am under the assumption that they are common folklore. Also should you see any of ring wraiths approaching you, follow the advice of Frodo Baggins, and get off the road! Now!.

Following in the footsteps of the FBI, a Most Wanted Identification List is in order. To assist in rapid identification, here is what you need to look for……Do not allow them near your money….they are extremely dangerous………

Ringwraith Harris McDowell III
Harris McDowell III

Ringwraith Robert Venables

Ringwraith Robert Valhura

Ringwraith Charlie Copeland

Charlie Copeland
Ringwraith Gregory LavelleRingwraith Gerald Hocker
Gregory Lavelle                           Gerald Hocker
Hazel Plant
Rep. Hazel Plant

Should you see any of these on the street. Warn others to hide immediately. Hint: You only get four seconds warning with a distortion of space and time before they appear through the portal.

They are not human. They are bound by oath to their master. They care not one iota whether you can pay these high prices or not. They are controlled by Delmarva. Fear these few….They stop at nothing to keep you from paying much less for your electricity.

Remember their faces…..They want to triple (28 cents) your electric bills!

To fight them effectively, go here.
Everything you need is there……..Don’t keep this to yourself, tell your neighbors…….