Rumors of Wind Power's Demise
Yesterday, Maria Evans, Dave Burris, Jason Scott and I came together to voice our support for the Bluewater Wind project. Each of us appended our individual comments to a joint statement.
Dave's statement contained this startling paragraph:
As Dana reports, Dave last night retracted the paragraph, before reversing himself this morning in a comment on Delaware Watch:
But the most puzzling aspect of the assertion that "a deal had been cut" to kill wind power is that we're so close to getting this done. HCR 38 passed the House last week 25 to 11, and has eight senators signed on as sponsors. Harris McDowell hasn't been able to get the Energy & Transit Committee to sign off on his report slamming Bluewater Wind and the Public Service Commission, and has resorted to leaking the document. Why would any advocate even consider giving up now?
I have heard rumors of unspecified compromise talks going on the Senate, but what is there to negotiate? A negotiated agreement is already on the table, and has the support of most of the public, three state agencies, and 35 legislators.
So why are we hearing these rumors? With the House passing HCR 38 last week, the pressure is squarely on the 21 members of the Senate. I doubt they like being in the hot seat, and suspect we will be hearing rumors of deals and solutions now and then until the matter is brought to a vote.
The most important fact of the situation is that we're three votes shy of getting this done, despite an unrelenting effort on the part of Delmarva Power and its allies in the Senate to kill the project.
Dave's statement contained this startling paragraph:
A week ago, one prominent Delawarean told me that the project was dead, the deal had been cut, that all of the players, including Senate leadership and the Governor candidates, were involved. It was over. DP&L was one of the good old boys and BWW was not and that was it.By the end of the day, John Carney and Jack Markell had denied the report to John Kowalko, Pat Gearity of Citizens for Clean Power and Dana Garrett of Delaware Watch.
As Dana reports, Dave last night retracted the paragraph, before reversing himself this morning in a comment on Delaware Watch:
I stand by my statement 100%. I shouldn't have retracted it. In fact, I'm going to go back right now and un-retract it.As for the denials from Carney and Markell, Dave asks:
What did you think they were going to say?I have no reason to doubt that someone actually said this to Dave, but I find the idea that Carney and Markell were part of a discussion to kill wind power implausible in the extreme. Both have been outspoken advocates for the Bluewater Wind project.
But the most puzzling aspect of the assertion that "a deal had been cut" to kill wind power is that we're so close to getting this done. HCR 38 passed the House last week 25 to 11, and has eight senators signed on as sponsors. Harris McDowell hasn't been able to get the Energy & Transit Committee to sign off on his report slamming Bluewater Wind and the Public Service Commission, and has resorted to leaking the document. Why would any advocate even consider giving up now?
I have heard rumors of unspecified compromise talks going on the Senate, but what is there to negotiate? A negotiated agreement is already on the table, and has the support of most of the public, three state agencies, and 35 legislators.
So why are we hearing these rumors? With the House passing HCR 38 last week, the pressure is squarely on the 21 members of the Senate. I doubt they like being in the hot seat, and suspect we will be hearing rumors of deals and solutions now and then until the matter is brought to a vote.
The most important fact of the situation is that we're three votes shy of getting this done, despite an unrelenting effort on the part of Delmarva Power and its allies in the Senate to kill the project.
posted by Tom Noyes at 7:06 AM
11 Comments:
A deal was cut, Carney was informed, Dave B. is telling the truth.
But, those handshakes were offered in a completely different political environment. One devoid of public opposition.
Things are not so clear-cut now. Members of the deal are beginning to waver towards ordering Larson to sign.
Public pressure can help.
So "a deal was cut," but that was "a completely different political environment." How was it different? It was "devoid of public opposition."
Do you mean to say that there was no public opposition to killing the Bluewater project in the recent past?
Popular support for offshore wind hasn't changed. It's as strong as it was last week, last month or last year.
I say: woe onto any Delaware senator that votes against the wind power resolution. We'll all be thinking about you come the next election.
Things really have got to change, and in a truly major way. We cannot afford to have our future determined by a small group of fossilized ol' boyz who are in bed with the vested interests in the status quo. These people will be washed away, and the sooner, the better. We're all in for tough times, and we can't afford to screw around with business as usual.
'The times, they are a changing!'
There could not be a better vantage of the players who stand in the way of BWW. Celia Cohen's coverage of the Thurman Adams Tribute.
People need to know who is for and who is against Blue Water Wind.
It needs to be made public before the vote.
All of us are keeping tallies: here is mine.
Adams....................against
Amick....................For
Blevins..................wavering
Bonini...................against
Bunting..................against
Cloutier.................For
Conner...................For
Cook.....................Against
Copeland.................Against
DeLuca...................Against
Ennis....................For
Henry....................For
R. Marshall..............For
McBride..................For
McDowell.................Against
Peterson.................For
Simpson..................Against
Sokola...................For
Sorenson.................For
Still....................Against
Venables.................For
That is 11 in favor of Bluewater.
Nine still in Delmarva's pocket.
And one Democrat from Elsmere sitting on the fence.
I am not sure about your count. I think there are several senators who haven't made up their minds yet. And I think one or two may be softening in their opposition.
"Dave last night retracted the paragraph, before reversing himself "
In short, Red-baiting Dave Burris was against his retraction before he was for it.
Curious, and off topic?
Didn't "red-baiting" go out of style with the demise of the Soviet Union?
2nd question: Aren't those who still rail at socialism proving that they themselves are inconsequential, irrelevant, and irresponsible in pursuing an agenda that itself is twenty years out of date?
For in reality, Bush, himself, has led us down the path of the USSR. The USSR used hard currency revenues (US dollars) earned from international sales of its natural resources (oil, diamonds, timber and so forth) to subsidize such unprofitable operations and trade over many decades, and thus to keep the proletariat happy. Under Bush's leadership, we are doing the same, but using soft currency from the international sales of pieces of economy. (borrowing). This would be a good place to remind Americans that this nation enjoyed a Budget Surplus, until a handful of Republicans took over.....
(not to be partisan, just stating facts)
kavips, I have checked personally with both Simpson and Bunting. You are wrong; both favor HCR 38, in fact, both are co-sponsors.
Perry Hood
Good catch, Perry.
Actually Bunting and Simpson, along with Bonini, are all signed on as sponsors of HCR 38.
Yes,
I had found evidence of their support and am changing my tally to reflect it.
Adams....................against
Amick....................For
Blevins..................wavering
Bonini...................For
Bunting..................against
Cloutier.................For
Conner...................For
Cook.....................Against
Copeland.................Against
DeLuca...................Against
Ennis....................For
Henry....................For
R. Marshall..............wavering
McBride..................For
McDowell.................Against
Peterson.................For
Simpson..................For
Sokola...................For
Sorenson.................For
Still....................Against
Venables.................wavering
(Updated changes following publication of votes to release McDowell's $100,000 report.)
11 For, 7 Against, 3 wavering
Post a Comment
<< Home