You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Sustainable Energy Utility Report’ category.
“However, if Delaware were to proceed in its business‐as‐usual fashion, its future would be worrisome. Delaware and Delawareans spend much more money on energy today than we need to. According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, in 2006, Delaware spent just over $3.6 billion on energy, ranking us as the 20th highest energy use per capita of all the states. Delaware ranks last in the nation in renewable energy production; overall, less than .05% of our energy in 2006 came from renewable sources. We are so low, that the next lowest state, Rhode Island, with a population slightly larger than Delaware’s, generated more than 50 times the amount of electricity from renewable energy than did Delaware. Nor can we be proud of our efforts to use electricity efficiently; for many years, Delaware was tied for last in the nation with regard to money spent on energy efficient investments. We have improved slightly since then; we are now tied at 32nd with Virginia, but have a very long way to go to even become average.”
That was from the Delaware Energy Office’s new assessment of our energy needs which one can view full by going here…
And our habits need changed as well.
Delaware wastes dollars in its use of energy. We Delawareans burn almost 150,000,000
gallons more than we would if our gasoline consumption was similar to Rhode Island. At $2.00 per gallon, our driving habits cost us about $300 million dollars more each year just on gasoline than do Rhode Island’s. Even if we were to only reduce our gasoline consumption by 10%, we would save 48.5 million gallons of gasoline each year, saving nearly $100 million.
It continues…
More broadly, in 2006, Delaware’s total energy use per person was 11% higher than Pennsylvania, 17% higher than New Jersey, 36% higher than Maryland, and 40% higher than Rhode Island. Given that we spent some $3.6 billion on energy in 2006, an 11% reduction would save us $400 million each year. If we used New Jersey as the standard to meet, we would see a $600 million annual savings. Matching Maryland means a $940 million savings. If Delaware wanted to be a leader with a per capita energy consumption rate equivalent to Rhode Island, we would have saved Delawareans over $1.5 billion dollars in 2006 alone!
Considering that we, and the nation, now face daunting economic challenges and need to restructure our economy to create many good new jobs, we can no longer afford to needlessly burn our money. If we continue along our current path, the state’s economic future will be held hostage to the global fossil fuel market and we will have little resilience to respond to energy price spikes or to future federal mandates to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuel. Instead, we will continue burning money that could be put to important, productive uses. On the other hand, the opportunities for improvement are dramatic if we make a full‐fledged commitment to improve our energy efficiency and shift to renewable energy. The potential to create new green energy industries and reduce our energy waste is enormous. But these changes will not occur on their own. The reason some states are efficient and have more renewable energy is primarily the result of the laws, policies and institutional frameworks that a state adopts.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we now have an official energy policy that we can get behind… Of course the devil is in the details.. We hope to keep you posted…
But we have a goal and that is to meet and beat the energy efficiency of “that other small state”.. If we can accomplish that, we will be near the top of the list in energy efficiency…
Our goal will be met by following two streams simultaneously… The first is to remarkellably reduce demand by cutting out waste, and the second is to gear up production of cost free renewable sources on our home turf…… Together, we can do this…
Yesterday Harris McDowell, a Democrat tried to ram a piece of legislation through his committee which would give his committee, the SEU, 65% of all money coming from the sale of REC’s (Renewable Energy Credits). Just imagine…… hundreds of millions of dollars.
Currently McDowell is chairman of that committee. Currently that committee is functioning beyond its scheduled cut off time which was last January, 2008.
That means that 65% of that $100,000.000 dollars will go to a organization not sanctioned, nor legal, and is currently chaired by the same person ramming the piece of legislation though his Senate Energy and Transit Committee.
Members of the audience offered protest, and the bill was tabled. It will show up again if no one is watching……..
Can you imagine?
Sixty-five million dollars would have flowed right into Harris McDowell’s pocket, if citizens, just plain citizens, had not just happened to be watching the proceedings….and objected….
Ponder that.
Part II
This was posted on DelawareLiberal.Net on May 9th. It is lifted from an email sent to DelawareLiberal.Net. by Charlie Copeland……a Republican.
I was unaware of the expiration of the SEU oversight board.
And this was placed before the Senate Committee of Energy and Transit, yesterday, May 14th.
What’s important here are the deeds and the dates. Words don’t mean much to this candidate for Lieutenant Governor.
Ponder that.
You would have made him proud.
Margaret O’Neill Bldg
Suite 3
410 Federal St.
Dover, DE 19901
Ph(302)739-2399
FX(302)739-2398
Being observant of the law, I have several questions I wish to ask of you relating to Senator Harris McDowell and the report coming out of his committee that slams Bluewater Wind.
I know that you are besieged by citizen’s requests at this time because of the recent turn of events, but would like to hear back from you on these matters.
My questions will pertain to, as following this brief background of your statement of policy.
The General Assembly finds and declares:
(l) In our democratic form of government, the conduct of officers and employees of the State must hold the respect and confidence of the people. They must, therefore, avoid conduct which is in violation of their public trust or which creates a justifiable impression among the public that such trust is being violated.
(2) To ensure propriety and to preserve public confidence, officers and employees of the State must have the benefit of specific standards to guide their conduct and of some disciplinary mechanisms to guarantee uniform maintenance of those standards. Some standards of this type are so vital to government that violation thereof should subject the violator to criminal penalties.
Thank you for your indulgence. First question is this.
If:
(1) No state employee, state officer or honorary state official may participate on behalf of the State in the review or disposition of any matter pending before the State in which he has a personal or private interest, provided, that upon request from any person with official responsibility with respect to the matter, any such person who has such a personal or private interest may nevertheless respond to questions concerning any such matter. A personal or private interest in a matter is an interest which tends to impair a person’s independence of judgment in the performance of his duties with respect to that matter……
Then how is the conduct of Harris McDowell while chairing the Senate Energy and Transit Committee hearing on Bluewater Wind, not a violation of the principals listed above?
Question 2:
If:
(2) A person has an interest which tends to impair his independence of judgment in the performance of his duties with respect to any matter when:
a. Any action or inaction with respect to the matter would result in a financial benefit or detriment to accrue to the person or a close relative to a greater extent than such benefit or detriment would accrue to others who are members of the same class or group of persons; or
b. The person or a close relative has a financial interest in a private enterprise which enterprise or interest would be affected by any action or inaction on a matter to a lesser or greater extent than like enterprises or other interests in the same enterprise.
Then how is the conduct of Harris McDowell while chairing the Senate Energy and Transit Committee hearing on Bluewater Wind, not a violation of the principals listed above?
Question 3:
If:
(1) No state employee, state officer or honorary state official may represent or otherwise assist any private enterprise with respect to any matter before the state agency with which the employee, officer or official is associated by employment or appointment.
(2) No state officer may represent or otherwise assist any private enterprise with respect to any matter before the State.
Then:
Despite the understanding that members of the General Assembly are not included in either the definition of either state officer or state employee..……How does the actions of State Senator Harris McDowell, who presided over what two very respected Senators publicly called a one-sided hearing, and witnesses have publicly acknowledged that openness was not tolerated in trying to find the one best solution to Delaware’s energy challenge….
How do these actions not heinously violate the principals stated above?
Question 4:
If:
No person who has served as a state employee, state officer or honorary state official shall represent or otherwise assist any private enterprise on any matter involving the State, for a period of 2 years after termination of his employment or appointed status with the State, if he gave an opinion, conducted an investigation or otherwise was directly and materially responsible for such matter in the course of his official duties as a state employee, officer or official.
Then:
How can Senator McDowell’s brazen attempt to pummel Delmarva’s interests over those of 90% of Delawareans, and not allowing any input from those same 90% of Delawareans, be considered as anything but “representing or otherwise assisting any private enterprise on any matter involving the State”?
Question 5:
If:
(1) Any person who knowingly or willfully violates any provision of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable for each such violation by imprisonment of not more than one year and by a fine not to exceed $l0,000.
Then:
How is it that Harris McDowell and others guilty of collusion are exempt from this clause in the law?
Question 6:
If:
(3) The Superior Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over prosecution for all criminal violations of this section.
Then:
Can any citizen or citizen’s group including, but not limited to the ACLU, Common Cause, Citizens of a Better Sussex County, The Audubon Society of Delaware, The Green Party of Delaware, The Sierra Club, or any other; file claim in the Superior Court of Delaware to determine by legal means whether or not, the Public Integrity Law of Delaware was not-adhered-to in this case?
Question 7:
If:
No state employee, state officer or honorary state official shall accept other employment, any compensation, gift, payment of expenses or any other thing of monetary value under circumstances in which such acceptance may result in any of the following:
(1) Impairment of independence of judgment in the exercise of official duties;
(2) An undertaking to give preferential treatment to any person;
(3) The making of a governmental decision outside official channels; or
(4) Any adverse effect on the confidence of the public in the integrity of the government of the State.
Then:
How is a group of substantial campaign contributions coming from one such interest, under the appearance of a questionable quid pro quo, not a violation of the Public Integrity Law?
Question 8:
IF:
(c) No state employee, state officer, or honorary state official shall acquire a financial interest in any private enterprise which he has reason to believe may be directly involved in decisions to be made by him in an official capacity on behalf of the State.
Then:
How does passage by the Senate of SB228, which could benefit one Senator Harris McDowell, who as head of a Green Energy Consulting Business, which is a “for profit” entity which can now be in charge of and oversee the dispensing of over $100,000, 000 of Renewable Energy Credits, not a direct benefit to one Harris McDowell and those members of his committee which he chooses to appoint to his board of directors?
Question 9:
If:
(1) “Lobbyist” means any individual who acts to promote, advocate, influence or oppose any matter pending before the General Assembly by direct communication with the General Assembly or any matter pending before a state agency by direct communication with that state agency, and who in connection therewith either:
And (2):
(a) Every lobbyist shall register with the Commission in a lobbyist docket and file, at that time, the authorization from his employer as required by § 5833 of this title. A person who qualifies as a lobbyist in accordance with § 5831(a)(1)a. or b. of this shall register prior to performing any acts as a lobbyist. A person who qualifies as a lobbyist in accordance with § 5931(a)(1)c. of this title must register within 5 days after so qualifying, if not already registered as a lobbyist.
Then:
Why was Randall Speck, who represented unequivocally McDowell’s one-sided view, allowed to cross examine state employees on video tape which was not legally cleared by any other state agency, and not allowing any such cross examination by other registered lobbyist or registered attorney friendly to the interests of those state employees being cross examined also on that same video tape, allowed to do so without signing up with the Public Integrity Office as a lobbyist, which according to law, must be done if he is to collude or is to be involved with any part or portion of the Senate Committee of Energy and Transit’s hearings or events?
I reserve to further more questions in the future.
Although some affected by your investigation may impute that I have self interests in finding these answers, I would rather deflect all queries to your judgment as to whether, or not, the very integrity of the Public Integrity Office will be at stake, if these actions are allowed to go unchallenged.
At the behest of good government, I look forward to your reply.
You may answer here, in a public forum, if you wish………..
Sincerely:
Today you must read this. Guaranteed. It won’t be on the News Journal until all other outlets have mentioned it first. Then, and only then, they will publish McDowell’s cut and paste defense, which if skimmed, may look credible. (Go ahead. Prove me wrong guys. Dare you)
In plain uncertain terms, when nobody was looking, money surcharged on your electric bill was almost hijacked by McDowell to guarantee his income after he leaves the Senate.
Illegal? Let the courts decide. Immoral? That can be decided here and now.
Hats off to Jason330 for digging through our state archives to pull this historical record out of cold storage, just as its proponent attempts to scuttle the best thing that ever happened to Delaware, simply because it got in the way of his becoming a millionaire.
The parallels are astounding. The attempt to sneak legislation through in 2001 versus the attempt to kill Bluewater Wind by secretly leaning on the Controller General.
Both times facts were not on his side. Both times Delawareans would be hurt if his actions ever got carried out.
Both times, he would make millions off the deal.
Do we elect our representatives to represent our interests, or take our money and line their pockets?
Obviously we do the latter, even though we assume we are helping ourselves in the process.
In the latter deal, one must also investigate the motives by the other three Senators colluding with McDowell to kill Bluewater Wind. “Desk Drawer” Adams, Tony DeLuca, and Charlie Copeland, all of which were part of the secrecy surrounding the illogical effort to postpone Bluewater Wind, and hopefully kill it, Obviously they have personal motives as well.
When something stinks, one should check the bottom of their shoes for the source. When four people walk out of the pig pen together, and one smells, good chance they all have the same shit on their shoes.
From the archives: courtesy of Jason330 diligent effort.
Senate Bill 235 expands the allowed use of ‘environmental incentive fund’ monies in a manner that is contrary to the purpose for which those monies were originally collected from electricity customers.
under S.B. 235, grants of up to $1million could be to persons or companies to develop renewable energy equipment, which companies could then sell without any requirement of reimbursement to the State of Delaware
Drawing huge sums of money out of the fund for private projects that may be of little or no benefit to energy conservation in Delaware is inconsistent with the purpose of the environmental incentive fund.
Senate Bill 235 also contains language which would eliminate an important condition that…….the money be spent within the service areas covering those customers who created the fund through their payment of the DP&L and Conectiv bills……The legislature placed this condition….to ensure that those funds were not spent out of state or even in those portions of the state that had not contributed to the fund.
House amendment No. 1 to S.B. 235 eliminated this requirement altogether.
Was this bill rushed through on the last hours of the last day or Legislative Session? Of course. It was passed on reflex: “green energy? Recommended by Committee? Sounds good….. Aye”
Furthermore:
Senate Bill 235 also removed from the President Pro Tem of the Senate and the Speaker or the House the authority to appoint representatives to the body that would distribute environmental incentive fund money and instead afforded those appointments to the chairs of the Senate Energy and Transit Committee (McDowell) and the House Telecommunications Committee (now retired). This is a substantial departure from the manner in which legislative appointments are normally made.
And as if Delaware needed any other reason to open Thurman Adams desk drawer and leave it open into perpetuity:
Senate Bill 235 also gives the board of the “Delaware Center for Green Energy” permission to use environmental incentive find money to pay for its members to take trips, pay for meals, and retain consultants – all without any limitation or approval of any state agency. The original version of S.B. 235 prior to its amendment (not to mention the existing statute governing the environmental incentive fund) required that the fund be used only for grants to third parities relating to energy conservation.
In clear terms money paid by our surcharge to Delmarva, for what we told were for green energy incentives……..went instead to book a motel room, order room service, and pay off prostitutes………………………………………(sometimes also called lobbyists).
Our hard earned funds going to pay off prostitutes.
Obviously Bluewater Wind is dipping into McDowell’s prostitute (lobbyist) fund as well. No wonder he is fighting it so hard.
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.
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.
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
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?
.
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………………
photo by SUCHAT PEDERSON, News Journal
I laugh every time a republican says “Deficits do not matter.” Obviously these republicans do not work in a bank. I don’t know about you but my bank hires hundreds of people to call and tell creditors the exact opposite every day. Outrageously, if banks followed Republican mantra, this country would be, not just between a rock and a hard place, but in a rock itself………..
Not to sound naive, but there is a propensity to use borrowed money in order to finance growth. Realistically, without borrowed money, economic stability would be a broken dream. Borrowing provides a framework to spread expensive costs over time and make those high ticket items, finally affordable. Translated to real time: one can buy a house much easier by getting a loan and making payments over thirty years, than they can by pinching pennies for thirty years and buying the house with cash. Plus they actually get to enjoy the result over the time they are paying it off, despite the fact that the total amount paid over time with interest, will be much higher. So borrowing is not “all bad.”
So in this capacity, when financial maggots crawl all over the federal budget figures, one can consider where this remark is coming from. It comes from Dick Cheney.
The average American in 2005 paid $3179.00 on something that doesn’t matter, if one takes the original author of the remark seriously. (Hopefully no one but E-ZPass Mike Castle is taking him seriously anymore). Let us hope we can all get our creditors to agree.
“I don’t care how much you say I owe! National policy under a separate entity (Vice President’s Office) of the Federal Government, dictates that whatever I owe,… doesn’t matter!….Go ahead! …Sue me!…..I’ll bring up that the very government you are using to sue me, itself doesn’t even subscribe to the principals on which you are suing me. It will never make it to court… …….”
Dream on.
So we are stuck with a deficit. Is that all bad?
Get this, and with tongue in cheek, I say this sounds so partisan it literally scares me…….. Deficits do not really matter under a Democratic president, but they do under a republican president! I am laughing even as I write this.
What? Is that not the most partisan statement ever written on a Delaware blog!……I can hear Dave now……”Got the facts to back that up?”
Sort of……
Now I know no republican will have respect for this person: Joseph Stiglitz, Professor, Columbia University and Nobel Laureate, economics 2001 for he has not been officially “approved” by “the party”, but the rest of you might…..
[W]e shouldn’t focus on deficits themselves. What really matters is the country’s balance sheet, its assets and its liabilities. Consider a company. You would never say, oh, this company is borrowing a lot and therefore, it is a bad company. You would always say what is it borrowing for? Is it for investment? You want to look at both its assets and its liabilities. You want to look at its balance sheet. Well, when we talk about the deficit, we’re talking about only one part of that balance sheet. We’re talking about what’s happening to the liabilities, what it owes, but not to what it’s spending the money on.
Now republicans…..that wasn’t so bad, was it?
Anyone who has ever looked at a balance sheet would implicitly recognize that the borrowing costs, or interest paid upon a debt, fall into the liability column. So using Stiglitz and analysing the Cheney Tax Theorum throught that programming, one can assume that the following is true:
$1.6 trillion in tax cuts? Doesn’t matter, and not just because of the revenues they bring in, but because, really, what is an extra GDP percent or two worth of deficit? A comma in history. No matter. Greater spending increases under this administration than any in the history of the country? No worries — we can borrow to pay for it and our credit is good (until it isn’t). The additional borrowing costs? They don’t matter (see Theorem).
So why are deficits good under Democrats and not good under republicans? It depends on what one spends the money on, stupid…….
Some of us are blessed with a spouse having a fine business sense. After we turn over our money to them, they invest wisely, and wow, we have done quite well…….Others of us, are less fortunate……..once our spouses have their fingers on our money, they spend it on stupid stuff. In both cases our income stayed the same. (“Honey, here’s my check.”) But there is a great difference between the two net worths over a period of time …..(We are how much in the hole?”)
So when money is borrowed for investments it is good. When it is borrowed for frivolousness, it is not.
Therefore in the current political environment — or until the next election — republicans like E-ZPass Mike Castle, or those who are deficit-indifferent, with much fanfare, applaud the leveraging our of our national resources to support the policy priorities of this administration!
By the time he leaves office, President Bush under the Saruman influence of Dick Cheney, will leave us paying upward of $50 billion more a year in deficit financing costs than when he took office. And for what?
Hurts, (my fiscal conservative friends), doesn’t it…..
kavips 
