During a recent meeting, Kent County Levy Court enacted a new land-use ordinance for solar development. The primary purpose of this ordinance is to prohibit new utility-scale solar deployments on agricultural land within the conservation district. The ordinance still allows applications for community energy-generating facilities, but these projects are now limited to 800 total acres and are subject to “administrative approval” — no annoying public hearings required.
The loss of 800 acres of prime Kent County farmland will temporarily appease community solar interests, but I believe the decision will anger utility-scale solar developers. The ordinance sacrifices up to 50 acres of land per project in an area intended for land conservation. This means a minimum of 16 projects, or more if they are smaller-size multimegawatt solar power projects.
The solar facilities lessen agricultural production in the county, destroy wildlife habitat and lead to diminished recreational opportunities that outdoor enthusiasts appreciate. All of these losses for projects that add little to grid capacity because solar electricity is unreliable and must be backed up with reliable generation or risk brownouts or catastrophic failure of the grid. The best batteries on Earth can provide about one hour of the nameplate capacity of the facilities — then, no electricity until the sun shines again.
Landowners in the affected area feel the 800-acre loss was a worthwhile trade to protect larger parcels of land from utility-scale solar development, and if the new ordinance operates as proposed, it may represent the best deal available at this time. However, all citizens must understand there is nothing “community-like” about a community energy-generation facility. The energy generated by these “stand-alone” community solar facilities, when sold to the electric grid, combine with all other electrons that flow on the transmission lines.
The “offtakers,” also known as the “subscribers,” of solar energy can reside anywhere in the state. Currently, Delaware state law mandates that 15% of the offtakers must be “low-income,” as identified by the regulated utility, Delmarva Power. All offtakers agree to have their electricity use monitored and receive a credit against their electricity bills, equal to the retail charge for the supply and delivery of the solar electricity they “consume.”
The cost of the subscriber’s credit is socialized and then added to the delivery charge of all ratepayers, including low-income subscribers. Offering a promised return in exchange for the return of one’s own money could be a hallmark of a Ponzi scheme. In this instance, the “return” is the promise of lower electricity bills, with the scheme managed by the regulated utility, Delmarva Power, at the behest of the government. There is no cost to the utility, which is a big reason management supports it, but their support also offers the opportunity to virtue signal and boost their environmental, social and governance (ESG) score for the investor class.
Subscribers will predictably demand more solar energy when they see the immediate reduction in the cost of their electricity bills — and politicians will give it to them. The Sierra Club already has announced they want a higher percentage of the solar energy directed to low-income households, with more solar energy added to the electricity mix, and the Sierra Club has a budget for political activism to turn their wants into reality.
It will take time for the higher delivery charges to have much of an impact on lower-use residential electricity bills, but higher-use commercial electricity customers will feel the effects immediately, with the destruction, not creation, of jobs.
Currently mandated subsidies, under the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards Act and the qualified fuel cell-provider tariff, subsidize wind, solar and the qualified fuel cell provider, Bloom Energy. These subsidies already add about $58 million annually to the cost for the delivery of electricity provided by Delmarva Power, and they will continue to increase the cost of delivery, as the mandates for more alternative energy increases. The new charge for the solar energy credits will make an already bad situation worse. Eventually, the cost for the delivery of increasingly scarce electricity will exceed the cost for the supply of electricity, as is already the case in the once great state of California.
Delaware does not have the economic might of California; thus, the economic carnage foolish electricity policies will inflict on all Delawareans will be disastrous. Any temporary “green jobs” created will never offset the permanent jobs lost due to the rising cost of electricity. People will suffer, as they have already suffered, whenever and wherever public aid subsidizes unreliable alternative-energy sources. Only the election of new leadership, in all branches of government, can change this predicable outcome. Vote like your life depends on it because it does.
John A. Nichols
Clayton
