The Delaware Project

08/27/2026

Let’s help her understand.
1. Your belief that you can spot people who deal drugs isn’t proof that you can.
2. Being a “drug dealer” isn’t a crime. Dealing drugs is a crime, but—beyond chitchat—no person’s identity is a crime. Innocence is presumed in the American system until someone is proven otherwise in a court with evidence and the right to a legal defense.
3. An arrest requires probable cause, and, sorry, but your suspicions and guesses don’t qualify.

Read the U.S. Constitution, starting with the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Let’s try learning before we start ranting, OK?

08/27/2026

Candidates Supporting A Data Center Moratorium In Delaware (An Incomplete List, We Assume):

FIRST, the disclaimer!

This is an unscientific survey, and the absence of any candidate's name from the list below should NOT be interpreted as their support for unregulated data center development in Delaware.

The absence of a candidate's name from this list ONLY means The Delaware Project has not seen or heard their position on the topic. We have not actively sought their opinions, and only know what we have learned coincidentally.

NONETHELESS, because we have now heard two 2026 candidates for office declare their support for a statewide moratorium on data center development in Delaware until lawmakers better understand what, if any, such facilities require, we're asking:

***Candidates, Do You Support a Moratorium on Data Center Development in Delaware?***

So far, we have learned that these candidates do:

Dave Redlawsk for the 23rd RD
Rae Krantz for State Rep
Kyle Grantham

We will only add the names of candidates whose positions on the topic we can verify, preferably through official campaign email to [email protected] and, hopefully, their campaign pages declaring their positions in the comments below.

We will attempt to reach as many state House and Senate candidates as possible via an outgoing email at the close of the primary season, but we do not trust our capacity to reliably reach all primary candidates in the short term.

So, please, consider this post primarily a venue for discussion.

Gregory S. Layton, The Delaware Project.

08/27/2026

What does that energy-cost chart really tell us — and what is driving your electric bill?

Good Morning, Neighbors.

First, let's give you some context. The Delaware Project sees power costs discussed hotly, and often inaccurately, among what we'll call the "politically interested" throughout Delaware on a daily basis.

We first saw the chart in question on Sen. Stephanie Hansen's page, took a few minutes to look it up and read the source, and by the time we got back, the comments were already wild—and, quite often, wrong. But to make sure you get another party's take on energy-related issues, take a look at her page and the Delaware State Senate Republican Caucus when you get a chance.

So, we're going to try to keep all sides, including our own, as honest as possible. The chart below, the one we saw on Sen. Hansen's page, is Lazard's annual comparison of what new power plants cost. Lazard is a prestigious global financial firm that specializes in high-level business advice and investing capital, and its chart tells the truth, but only when read closely.

And that's what we did; we actually read it before saying a word about it. Doesn't that sound crazy?

Lazard's "levelized cost of energy" is the lifetime cost of building, financing, fueling, and running a new plant, spread across the electricity it produces. The July 2026 edition, unsubsidized, per megawatt-hour: $40–$98 for utility-scale solar, $37–$99 for onshore wind, $61–$156 for solar with batteries, $51–$129 for combined-cycle gas, $144–$276 for gas peakers. New nuclear, at $175–$255, reflects Georgia's Vogtle reactors, the only recent U.S. build. New coal? With none being built, Lazard shows only an inflation-adjusted older estimate.

Read the fine print. The ranges overlap — a favorable gas project can beat a difficult solar one. The low solar numbers are utility projects, not rooftops. "Unsubsidized" excludes tax credits, and pollution costs, too. And every technology got pricier this year — interest rates, tariffs, supply chains.

Why are wind and solar so often cheapest? No fuel bill, ever. Their cost is mostly up-front, factory-built and quick to install; manufacturing scale cut utility-scale solar costs 82% from 2010 to 2020, per the federal renewable-energy lab. A gas plant buys fuel every hour it runs, at prices that swing; new nuclear carries heavy construction and financing risk.

The chart cannot tell you this: electricity is not one product. A megawatt-hour in a July heat wave, close to home, is worth more than one far away in a mild midday surplus. The U.S. Energy Information Administration warns such direct comparisons "are misleading" on their own. Its averages for plants entering service in 2031 cluster closer — about $57 wind, $58 solar, $77 combined-cycle gas, $94 solar-plus-battery, $88 advanced nuclear — its wind and solar figures now credit-free, since the 2025 tax law ends those credits for projects finished after 2027. Economists have long made this point; careful reviews find integration costs small at low renewable shares, rising unevenly at high ones. Lazard agrees: its own report adds regional "firming" costs — and even firmed wind (about $98) and solar (about $123) on our grid, PJM, still land inside the range of new combined-cycle gas.

And the chart prices new plants; most of our power comes from old ones. Lazard pegs the marginal cost of simply running existing, paid-off plants at roughly $26–$36 per MWh for nuclear, $32–$51 for combined-cycle gas, $34–$69 for coal — often cheaper than building anything. Whether one stays open is decided plant by plant — which brings us to Millsboro.

NRG bought Indian River from Delmarva Power in 2001. Three of its four coal units closed from 2010 to 2013 under state pollution agreements. In June 2021, NRG told PJM it would retire the last 411-MW unit after two straight years of losses as capacity-market revenue collapsed — Lazard's math in an owner's books. But it could not simply vanish: PJM found retirement would violate transmission-reliability standards on the peninsula, so customers paid roughly $50 million a year under a federal "reliability-must-run" agreement while Delmarva built the fix. The final upgrade finished early; the unit closed in February 2025, 22 months ahead of schedule, saving customers an estimated $93 million. This spring, with data-center demand surging, Sussex legislators floated restarting the site, likely on gas. "Replace 411 megawatts of coal with 411 of solar" was never honest accounting; replace the energy, the capacity and the local grid services, and the math works.

Now the costs kept off every bill. A congressionally requested National Academies study put coal power's non-climate damages — deaths, illness, harmed crops and buildings — near $32 per MWh in 2005, versus $1.60 for gas. Old numbers — controls and closures have cut the harm steeply. A 2023 study in Science tied about 460,000 deaths of older Americans to coal-plant particulates from 1999 to 2020, the yearly toll falling from over 43,000 to about 1,600 by 2020. Berkeley Lab estimates 2022 wind and solar delivered climate and health benefits near $143 and $100 per MWh ($36 and $17 for health alone) — society's savings, not a bill credit, and assumption-sensitive. Wind, solar and nuclear have real impacts too: mining, land, wildlife, waste. The durable conclusion is an ordering, not one true price: coal's unpriced burden largest, gas smaller but real, non-combustion far gentler on the people downwind.

Meanwhile, our bills. Residential electricity averaged 13.15 cents per kWh nationally in 2020 and 17.30 cents in 2025 — up about 32% — and this June ran 5% above last. Delaware reached about 19.4 cents this spring, up roughly 7% in a year. The state Public Advocate finds Delmarva distribution rates doubled since 2006, transmission charges up 93.5% since 2020, summer supply rates up 114% since 2021. The renewable-compliance charge? Down 11% this June. Delmarva earns no profit on the power itself — supply costs pass through — while its parent, Exelon, earned $2.77 billion in 2025, up 12.5%, crediting higher distribution and transmission rates among the drivers. That is not proof of gouging — regulated wires earn an authorized return — but it is exactly why Delaware's new prudence law, in force since January, must be used.

What would serving the public look like?

• Plan on whole-system value — energy, capacity, firming, wires, fuel and construction risk, health — never on one number.

• Buy wind, solar and storage where they win competitively; keep affordable existing nuclear and other firm plants; add gas only for demonstrated need, not speculation customers will pay to abandon.

• Build wires, efficiency and demand response faster; make the largest new loads, data centers included, pay the costs they cause.

• Audit utility spending against projections; shield the households least able to absorb one more increase.

Neither slogan is true — not "renewables always win," not "keep every old plant." The public interest is the lowest-risk mix of energy and reliability, with the off-bill costs counted and a plain answer to who pays and who profits. On that fuller accounting, clean energy usually earns its place. Whether its benefits reach your bill depends on planning, oversight — and neighbors paying attention.

IF you'd like to read the Lazard report yourself, we'll put the link in the comments, and supply any of the other sources we relied on upon request.

See Clearly. Do the Work. Build Together.

08/27/2026

GOOD Morning, Neighbors.
Here's some BIG data center news (read all the way to the bottom).

Yesterday, Aug. 26, Delaware Governor Matt Meyer signed three bills related to large electricity users (e.g., data centers) and held a signing ceremony for them, along with another bill he signed in July.

Gov. Meyer presented four measures as a single “energy-consumer protection” package. Their common idea is simple: when a new power-hungry facility creates high costs or reliability risks, households and small businesses should not inherit the bill.

The Delaware Project will cover each bill briefly below, with notes on how the votes fell to help readers see what appears to be a partisan divide developing on this issue.

HB 233: House Substitute 1 for HB 233, primarily sponsored by Rep. Frank Burns, requires a separate utility rate class for large energy-use facilities in Delmarva Power territory. Long-term service agreements, financial guarantees and recurring cost tests are designed to assign those facilities’ grid-upgrade, transmission, capacity and study costs to them—not other customers—and protect the public if a project closes early. Covered facilities generally go first when power must be curtailed during grid emergencies unless they add qualifying generation.

* At the final vote, the partisan breakdown was 27 Democrats yes; eight Republicans no; six Republicans not voting. In the Senate, all Democrats voted yes, and all Republicans voted no.

HB 445: Primarily sponsored by Rep. Debra Heffernan, this is Delaware’s “bring your own generation” law. A covered facility must produce or procure qualifying new generation sufficient to match 100% of its annual electricity use—immediately or through an approved ramp-up reaching 100% within 10 years. That generation may be in Delaware, the DPL transmission zone, or certain adjoining PJM zones. Importantly, the law does not require 100% renewable power: a prescribed share must be clean, with nuclear power and certain storage eligible, while single-cycle or open-cycle generation is excluded.

* The partisan breakdown looked this way: 26 Democrats voted yes; eight Republicans voted no; one Democrat and six Republicans did not vote. In the Senate, all 15 Democrats and six Republicans voted yes.

HB 310: Also primarily sponsored by Heffernan, this generally excludes large energy users from Delaware business tax credits and license-fee reductions tied to new facilities, investment, and jobs. However, the final Senate amendment preserves eligibility when a facility secures 100% qualifying new generation and meets the clean-energy conditions. It is therefore a conditional incentive—not a categorical prohibition.

* The partisan breakdown in the House was 26 Democrats voting yes, and 11 Republicans no. One Democrat and two Republicans did not vote; one Republican was absent. In the Senate, all Democrats voted yes, and all Republicans voted no.

SB 326: Primarily sponsored by Sen. Stephanie Hansen, this law addresses utility oversight more broadly. It generally requires five-year management audits, clearer rate tables and plain-language communications, accounting review in rate cases, and tighter limits on interim increases. It caps recoverable non-mandatory capital spending at $70 million in 2026 and 2027, then 5% of the rate base, while exempting necessities such as tree work, inspections, new-customer connections, legal mandates, and emergencies

* The partisan breakdown in the House was 27 Democrats and three Republicans yes; 11 Republicans no. In the Senate, the votes came with all 15 Democrats and five Republicans saying yes, and one Republican no.

Together, these laws neither ban nor approve any particular data center, guarantee electric bills will fall, nor settle concerns about water, noise, backup-generator pollution or local land use. Much depends on Public Service Commission rules, enforcement, utilities, and regional PJM and federal decisions. Their larger significance is that Delaware has put “cost causation” into law: extraordinary private demand should carry its own extraordinary costs and risks.

In related news, The Delaware Project has learned from credible sources that leaders in the Delaware General Assembly are now connsidering a special session related to data center regulation, with a bill to create a moratorium on all data center development in the First State having been drafted, in case lawmakers choose that route. We'll raise this detail to the top of a story and go into greater depth if or when we learn more about it.

Check The Delaware Project again about 10 a.m. We're working on a longer piece about the relative costs of power sources.

PHOTO CREDIT: Delaware Division of the Public Advocate, which deserves a follow on Facebook.

08/26/2026

About a dozen Kent County residents attended the Aug. 25 workshop of Kent County Levy Court to express their concerns about data centers and ask that Levy Court make data centers a conditional use, not a by-right use, and add other protections on the centers’ development in Kent County.

Levy Court Vice President Robert Scott told the audience that other measures, possibly including a moratorium, are being considered by county leaders, although they hope to proceed cautiously, not just quickly.

Sierra Club Environmental Justice Organizer Marissa McClenton told county commissioners that county residents feel urgency and plan to continue pushing for additional protections.

08/25/2026

Kent County Levy Court will meet at 6 p.m. this evening, Aug. 25, at the Kent County Administration Building in Dover.
Last week, an agenda revision removed data centers from this evening's scheduled workshop discussions. Council Vice President Robert Scott said the change will give commissioners time to learn more about the topic, but Levy Court typically provides time for public comment—on any county topic—during workshop meetings, and the Delaware Sierra Club encourages Kent County residents concerned about the data center development in the county to attend and speak their minds.

The Delaware Project recommends preparing to speak for about one minute with a specific request, such as making data centers a conditional use within Kent County, rather than simply expressing broad opposition. Making data centers a conditional use would require public notice for each data center application and a public hearing, where residents could share their opinions on the proposal.

Other steps residents could recommend this evening include:

* Prohibiting data centers on sites only served by private wells.
* Requiring more stringent, nighttime noise limits for data centers.
* Or, establishing a countywide moratorium on data centers until the county's recently passed data center ordinance is amended with stronger protections.

Your voice is yours to use as you wish. The Delaware Project's strongest recommendation is to prepare your words in advance.

08/25/2026

UPDATE: No vote today on Sussex County’s forest-preservation ordinance.

County Council spent nearly an hour Aug. 25 reviewing proposed changes to Ordinance 26-05, but it did not vote on the amendments or the ordinance itself.

Near the end, Council President Douglas B. Hudson told members to bring their “patience hat next week” because amendment voting would be “slightly tedious.”

The next scheduled Council meeting is Tuesday, Sept. 1, at 10 a.m. That suggests amendment votes could come then—but the Sept. 1 agenda has not yet been posted, so the date is not confirmed.

The County’s ordinance page still lists the proposal as “Pending Vote.” The Delaware Project will watch for the agenda, revised ordinance text, and any comparison showing exactly what changed.

Official recording:
https://mediasite.sussexcountyde.gov/mediasite/Play/8282b63204c446c59060276369060cc01d?catalog=216731fa04dc460893adad0883f243c321

Ordinance record:
https://sussexcountyde.gov/forest-preservation

08/25/2026

Hey, a councilman we sometimes critique brought this to our attention.
Thank you, David Anderson: Where we agree, we agree!

Get some kids educated, build an economy that rewards their potential, and we'll have far fewer things to argue about.

The Delaware Project's list of back-to-school supply events got too long to keep updating, but we'll try to post separate county-by-county lists before next week.

And if you're looking for a place near you to donate or find tools for a young mind, just ask. We're happy to find an event or program near you.

Still need a backpack and supplies? Stop by City Hall THURSDAY AUGUST 27th (sorry there was a typo on the last flyer thank you for catching it!)
Your child must be present
Giveaway is at City Hall starting at 3pm
Book bags for kids of all ages!

08/25/2026

FYI, more opportunities to weigh in on Delmarva's proposed rate hike.

Last week’s Delaware Public Service Commission public comment session in PSC Docket No. 25-1555 (Delmarva Power Electric Rate Case) was affected by technical issues that prevented some members of the public from joining the virtual component of the meeting.

The Delaware Public Advocate’s Office requested an additional public comment session so that individuals who were unable to participate because of these issues would have another opportunity to comment.

Yesterday, the Public Advocate’s Office was advised that the Hearing Examiner granted the request. A second public comment session will be scheduled, with details to be announced.

08/24/2026

Good Afternoon, Neighbors.
Somewhere between 22,000 and 43,000 acres. That's how much forest Sussex County has lost in the past quarter century, depending on which official count you use — the State Forester acknowledged this summer that two methodologies produce two numbers. Take the most conservative one, and we've still lost more than 20,000 acres of shade, songbirds, and stormwater protection. Once a mature forest is gone, no landscaping plan brings it back in our lifetimes.

Tuesday at 10 a.m. in Georgetown, County Council takes up Ordinance 26-05 — the forest preservation and tree planting ordinance — under Old Business. The county's own website now labels it "Pending Vote." Let's be honest about what that means: council could adopt it, amend it, or defer it again. Nothing on the agenda guarantees a vote. But after sixteen months of hearings and revisions, this is the closest the ordinance has ever come to a decision.

Here's what the introduced ordinance would actually do — a first for Sussex County. Before building residential or mixed-use projects on wooded land, developers would need professional Forest Stand Delineation mapping to show what's there. They'd have to preserve 30 percent of the pre-existing forest in designated growth areas, and 50 percent in rural areas — percentages of the forest on the site, not the whole property, and forest inside the already-required perimeter buffers doesn't count toward the target. Preservation would prioritize floodplains, stream corridors, and connected stands over isolated patches. Clear beyond your limit, and you'd owe reforestation of twice the excess area cleared — two and a half times in rural areas — planted at a minimum of 100 live trees per acre. Minor subdivisions and accessory dwelling units are exempt; the rules would take effect six months after adoption, and completed applications already on file wouldn't be affected.

One caveat we owe you: the posted packet contains the ordinance as introduced in April. The amendments council discussed on Aug. 11 haven't been published as a consolidated revision, so the final shape is still genuinely open. That's not a reason to tune out — it's the reason Tuesday matters.

Three questions remain live. First, what counts as a forest? The draft says 10,000 square feet dominated by trees and woody plants. Builders call that unworkably broad; Councilman Matt Lloyd has pushed to raise the tree-size standard from two inches to four, while Councilwoman Jane Gruenebaum argues for a definition grounded in biodiversity science — habitat, not just timber inventory. Where this lands decides how much woodland the law actually covers. Second, should land logged within the previous five years be barred from development — closing a loophole that would reward cutting first and applying later? Third, should developers be allowed to pay a fee or preserve forest somewhere else instead of on-site? Builders say yes, for flexibility; the Sussex Preservation Coalition answers that mature trees standing where people actually live are worth more than promises planted elsewhere.

At July's public hearing, your neighbors filled the chambers, many wearing "No Forest, No Future" stickers. A fifth-generation Sussex Countian told council he no longer recognizes his home. That room was full because people showed up — and the amendments now under discussion came directly from that testimony.

The formal hearing record is closed, and no new hearing is scheduled for Tuesday. But you still have four real ways in — pick one right now:

🌳 SHOW UP: Tuesday, Aug. 25, 10 a.m., Council Chambers, 2 The Circle, Georgetown. General public comments are heard near the start, and your presence in the room speaks all morning.

🌳 CALL INTO THE MEETING LIVE: 1-302-394-5036, conference code 570176. The county's agenda confirms phone participants may speak during the public comment period — you can be heard from your own kitchen table.

🌳 WATCH: sussexcountyde.gov/council-chamber-broadcast — click "Watch."

🌳 CONTACT YOUR COUNCIL MEMBER before 10 a.m.: Matt Lloyd (District 1), Steve McCarron (District 2), Jane Gruenebaum (District 3), Council President Doug Hudson (District 4), Vice President John Rieley (District 5), or the council office at (302) 855-7700.

And here's what makes thirty seconds count double: don't just say yes or no. Name the choice that matters most to you — the forest definition, the five-year look-back, or fee-in-lieu — and say why. Council has heard "protect the trees." What moves votes now is which version of protection you want.

Most of us assume someone else will make that call. That's exactly why so few calls get made.

Whatever happens Tuesday, we'll be watching and will report back. This is what self-government looks like: five neighbors around a table in Georgetown, deciding what our home will look like in fifty years — and all of us deciding whether to be in the room.

See Clearly. Do the Work. Build Together.

— The Delaware Project

*(Sources: Sussex County Aug. 25 agenda & packet; sussexcountyde.gov forest preservation ordinance text; Delaware Public Media; Cape Gazette; Spotlight Delaware.)