Proposed expansion of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (DE legislators)
May 13, 2019 (e-mail)
Sen. Harris McDowell
cc: Sen. Dave Lawson, Rep. David Wilson
The May 10 hearing re raising the renewal energy target after 2025 was interesting, and you are to be commended for permitting a frank discussion of the issues. Given your invitation to provide additional comments in writing, I’m forwarding the following comments:
#Some observations on the hearing are included in SAFE's current blog entry. Multiple attacks on use of fossil fuels, part D, 5/13/19.
#My suggestion at the hearing that the renewable energy target should be frozen at the current level was based on two points. (1) Abolition of the RPS would be an ideal answer, as John Nichols and John Greer said, but seems like “a bridge too far” from a political standpoint. (2) A freeze would be consistent with the cost cap imposed by the General Assembly several years ago, which may already have been exceeded. Given that two state agencies (DNREC and the PSC) are currently in litigation based on different interpretations of the General Assembly’s intent, the General Assembly should resolve the matter by making its intent clearer.
#I would respectfully disagree with your suggestion that the RPS will prove beneficial for Delaware even if the manmade global warming theory (MMGWT) proves unfounded. Imposing economic burdens that are needed to avert drastic environmental harm would be one thing, if one believed the theory, but electric power consumers should not be saddled with unnecessary costs in the name of creating “green” jobs (consider how that has worked out with the Bloom Energy venture) - and the net economic effects of higher than necessary electric power costs will assuredly be negative.
#As for assessing the MMGWT, I would urge you and other Delaware legislators to seek the best scientific expertise that is available including the views of experts on both sides. Experience has shown that it’s not easy to organize a Blue Team/ Red Team debate on this issue as the MMGWT advocates have grown accustomed to claiming that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus, the debate is over, etc. An 80-minute hearing recently conducted by the Pennsylvania Senate suggests otherwise, bringing out numerous points about the MMGWT that have been systematically soft pedaled or ignored by UN studies, the EPA, the mainstream media, etc. Multiple attacks on use of fossil fuels, part E, 5/13/19.
I hope you will find these inputs of interest. Please advise if we can help further.