[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Get weekly updates

when your community is targeted


RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Paypal

Donate via Stripe

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005.

News Watch Home

Turbulence remains for wind power bill in Maryland; Higher utility bills a bipartisan concern 

Credit:  By David Hill - The Washington Times, www.washingtontimes.com 29 March 2012 ~~

ANNAPOLIS – The House is expected to vote Friday on a bill that would pave the way for offshore-wind energy.

Lawmakers began debate Thursday on the proposal, which would set the regulatory framework for a system in which wind-energy companies would set up turbines off the coast of Ocean City and sell renewable-energy credits to Maryland energy providers seeking to boost their renewable-energy portfolios to keep in line with state standards.

Gov. Martin O’Malley is sponsoring the bill as one of his premier pieces of legislation in this year’s General Assembly and hopes to rebound from the failure of a similar bill last year.

Mr. O’Malley, a Democrat, is mounting a late charge to get the bill passed before the assembly adjourns April 9. Supporters say the bill will put Maryland at the forefront of the wind-energy movement and create jobs while reducing the state’s dependence on nonrenewable energy sources.

“It makes Maryland a leader. We want jobs and sustainable green Maryland jobs, and this provides them,” said Delegate Tom Hucker, Montgomery Democrat and the bill’s lead House sponsor. “We’ve subsidized coal and nuclear energy for decades, and now it’s time for this.”

Despite a push from the governor, Republicans and many Democrats have been reluctant to accept the proposal because of the strong likelihood that implementing offshore wind – which is currently a more expensive energy source than coal or natural gas – will cause residents’ energy bills to go up.

Last year’s wind bill died after some studies estimated it could drive up household energy bills by as much as $9 a month.

This year’s bill would cap average household rate increases at no more than $1.50 a month and commercial bill increases at no more than 1.5 percent.

Opponents say such increases are still too much.

“It’s using taxpayer subsidies at a time when we’re raising their income taxes and their flush taxes and their boat taxes and every other tax we can think of,” said House Minority Leader Anthony J. O’Donnell, Calvert Republican. “This is bad policy and we shouldn’t be doing it.”

Delegate Dereck E. Davis, Prince George’s Democrat and chairman of the House Economic Matters Committee that approved the bill Monday, downplayed the effect that wind energy could have on consumer bills.

He said the cost gap between wind and nonrenewable sources is expected to close in coming years and that ratepayers will pay only for their energy and won’t be on the hook for developers’ initial infrastructure investments.

“Once it’s come on line, the citizens will be paying for that power that was actually produced,” Mr. Davis said. “Construction overruns or manufacturing defects … none of that is on the ratepayers; all of that is on the developer.”

House debate Thursday was largely dominated by Republicans who criticized the bill’s impact on ratepayers and also questioned whether there is a sufficient market of wind-energy firms ready to make an investment in the state.

Delegate Michael A. McDermott, Worcester Republican, suggested the state would be better off pursuing a short-term, small-scale wind project – such as one announced this week in Virginia – before overhauling statewide energy policy.

“The idea is first to see whether or not it is actually worthwhile,” said Mr. McDermott, adding that the state should “let the industry drive this force instead of letting the state driving it through expense of the ratepayers.”

If the bill passes the House, it would move to the Senate Finance Committee for discussion next week and potential passage to the Senate floor.

Source:  By David Hill - The Washington Times, www.washingtontimes.com 29 March 2012

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
   Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)
Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)


e-mail X FB LI TG TG Share

News Watch Home

Get the Facts
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.


Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook

Wind Watch on Linked In Wind Watch on Mastodon