Energy Storage Systems provide benefits to the electric grid, including grid stabilization, managing peak energy demand, and providing backup power during outages. Energy Storage Systems can provide substantial cost savings to residential, commercial, and industrial electricity customers. The construction of Energy Storage Systems will promote economic growth and job creation in Delaware. This resolution directs the Delaware Sustainable Energy Utility (DESEU) to initiate and undertake a study to assess and analyze the costs and benefits of the adoption of Energy Storage Systems, both in front of and behind the meter, by all electric public utilities in Delaware. The resolution also directs the DESEU to conduct a pilot program and provide guidance and a level of funding, to be determined by the DESEU, to support Delmarva Power & Light Company, the Delaware Municipal Electric Corporation, the Delaware Electric Cooperative, and one independent power producer to deploy at least one battery storage pilot project in Delaware to serve their Delaware service territory. The DESEU is to submit a comprehensive report detailing the findings from the battery storage pilot program and the cost-benefit study and analysis of Energy Storage Systems in Delaware on or before June 1, 2026.
Sponsored bills
Grid-enhancing technologies (GETs) offer efficient tools to increase power grid capacity without the need for new transmission lines. Studies demonstrate that these innovations can double renewable energy integration, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and significantly expand interzonal transmission capacity. By 2035, GETs and reconductoring could help the U.S. achieve 90% emissions-free electricity. This resolution directs the DNREC State Energy Office (DNREC SEO) and the Delaware Sustainable Energy Utility (DESEU) to conduct a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of GETs across all electric utilities in Delaware. The study shall assess ratepayer costs, technical feasibility, and implementation plans. DNREC SEO and DESEU are tasked with collaborating with the electric utilities, the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, the Division of the Public Advocate, and other interested stakeholders and must submit a detailed preliminary report of its findings to the Governor and all members of the General Assembly by December 31, 2025, and a final report by July 31, 2026.
Public utilities are regulated monopolies. Practically speaking, a public utility has no competition in its service territory and, therefore, does not face the economic risks that a for-profit, non-utility company must face. By law, a public utility is authorized the opportunity to earn a reasonable rate of return on the costs it incurs in operating its business. Under the current Public Utilities Code, in determining the rates that public utilities may charge customers, the Delaware Public Service Commission must apply the “business judgment rule” standard in deciding which costs may be included in a utility’s rate base. Forty-eight (48) states in the United States apply the “prudence” standard when setting utility rates, not the "business judgement rule" standard that is applied in Delaware. The more costs that are included in rate base, the higher the rates that are charged to utility customers. Under the “business judgment rule” standard, the Public Service Commission may not disallow the inclusion of a cost in rate base, even though the cost was incurred imprudently. For example, a utility may decide to expand the size of its facilities, but overbuilds those facilities at a cost of $3 million, even though a smaller $1 million expansion would be adequate to serve its customers and anticipated future growth. Under the business judgment rule, the Public Service Commission is not able to deny recovery of any part of the cost of the expanded facility and it will be included in rate base. Consequently, customer utility bills have been increasing and could continue to increase significantly. Amending the Public Utility Code so that the “prudence” standard applies, would give the Public Service Commission the ability to deny, in whole or in part, certain expenses and costs, which can lead to less frequent and less impactful rate increases.
This House Substitute No. 1 for House Bill No. 50 creates the Delaware Energy Fund to provide assistance to consumers whose household income is less than 350% of the federal poverty level. Under 2025 federal guidelines, 350% of the federal poverty level for a single person is $54,775 and for a family of four is $112,525. The Delaware Energy Fund will be administered by the SEU and recipients of assistance from the fund will also be required to participate in energy savings and efficiency programs. Only one assistance payment may be made per application. The Act also directs the Department of Natural Resources Environmental Control to transfer 30% of the funds generated by alternative compliance payments and solar alternative compliance payments to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. The Substitute also changes existing code language to require, rather than allow, 5% of CO2 allowance proceeds to be directed to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. The Act sunsets 3 years after its enactment.
This Act seeks to update the fine structure for major commercial polluters. In addition, this Act increases the amount of penalty funds directed to communities near facilities with violations. In summary, this Act imposes higher fines for violations of the following chapters: Chapter 22 of Title 3, relating to nutrient management programs; Chapter 60 of Title 7, relating to environmental control; Chapter 62 of Title 7, relating to oil pollution liability; Chapter 63 of Title 7, relating to hazardous waste management; Chapter 71 of Title 7, relating to noise control and abatement; Chapter 79 of Title 7, relating to chronic violator status; Chapter 91 of Title 7, relating to the Hazardous Substances Cleanup Act; and Chapter 13 of Title 16, relating to stream pollution. In addition, 40 percent, rather than 25 percent, of the civil and administrative funds collected under various environmental regulatory chapters will be appropriated to the Community Environmental Project Fund under § 6042 of Title 7. The Fund will give priority to community environmental projects located within a 2-mile radius of the violation or infraction. This Act adds to the fund 40% of the fines collected for oil pollution and noise control and abatement violations, under Chapter 62 and Chapter 71 of Title 7. This Act further allows DNREC to appeal a decision by the Environmental Appeals Board relating to chronic violator status.
Maddy summarySB 148 amends Delaware law to designate the Blue Dasher dragonfly as the state's official dragonfly. This procedural bill formally adds the Blue Dasher to Title 29 of the Delaware Code, recognizing it as a new state symbol. The change does not alter existing laws or policies but provides a formal emblem for Delaware's natural heritage. It directly affects Delaware's state identity by expanding its official symbols.
This Act strikes the provisions in § 1014 (d) and (e) of Title 26, which allow Commission-regulated electric utilities, municipal electric companies, electric cooperatives, and electric distribution companies not to reimburse, credit, or otherwise remunerate net energy metering customers for any Excess kWh Credits at the end of the annualized billing period. Under the current provisions of § 1014 (d) and (e) of Title 26, Excess kWh Credits revert to the commission-regulated electric utilities, municipal electric companies, electric cooperatives, and electric distribution companies, which denies net metering customers the benefit of the Excess kWh Credits. This Act requires Commission-regulated electric utilities, municipal electric companies, electric cooperatives, and electric distribution companies to credit or carry over any Excess kWh Credits for net energy metering customers so that the customers receive the benefit of the Excess kWh Credits.
This Act expands the criminal offense of impersonating a police officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician, paramedic, or fire officer to also prohibit impersonation of a federal officer. This Act also makes technical corrections to conform to the Legislative Drafting Manual and creates a definition of “law-enforcement official,” which includes all of the state officers already explicitly referenced in the statute, as well as federal officers.
Currently, the Department of Correction (“Department”) biennially reviews individuals sentenced to more than 1 year of incarceration to determine if there is good cause to recommend a sentence modification to the Board of Parole for an individual who is not a substantial risk to the community or the individual’s self. Good cause includes the individual’s rehabilitation, serious medical illness or infirmity, and prison overcrowding. While any individual is eligible for consideration due to a serious medical illness or infirmity, only those who have served at least ½ of their sentence for a violent felony or all of the statutorily mandated term of incarceration are eligible for consideration for rehabilitation, prison overcrowding, or another reason. If the Department recommends an individual for sentence modification, the Board of Parole considers the application and, if the Board approves, the sentencing court then makes a final determination on the sentence modification. This Act, which is named in honor of Richard “Mouse” Smith, a Delaware civil rights leader, who spent decades advocating on issues addressed by this Act, is a substitute for Senate Bill No. 10. Like Senate Bill No. 10, this Act revises the process for sentence modification in 3 ways. First, this Act removes the Board of Parole from the sentence modification process and provides that applications for sentence modification are made directly to the sentencing court. Second, this Act provides that an individual who is sentenced to incarceration for more than 1 year may seek a sentence modification in 3 circumstances: (1) The application for a sentence modification is based solely on the person’s serious medical illness or infirmity. (2) The person is 60 years of age or older, has served at least 15 years of the originally imposed Level V sentence, and the application for sentence modification is based solely on the person’s rehabilitation. (3) The person has served at least 25 years of the originally imposed Level V sentence and the application for sentence modification is based solely on the person’s rehabilitation. Third, this Act provides that an individual who is sentenced to incarceration for more than 1 year and whose sentence is reviewed by the Department, but who the Department does not recommend for sentence modification, may directly apply to the court for a sentence modification. Like Senate Bill No. 10, this Act also makes clear that the Department and sentencing court must consider if a sentence modification resulting in the release of an individual who is incarcerated would constitute a substantial risk to a victim of, or witness to, an offense that is the subject of the sentence modification and that the sentencing court must provide an opportunity for the victim and the Department of Justice to be heard. This Act differs from Senate Bill No. 10 as follows: (1) Providing that a person is not eligible for a sentence modification under this Act if the person is serving a statutorily mandated term of incarceration at Level V for a conviction of any offense under this title and has not yet served all of the statutorily mandated portion of the Level V sentence. Senate Bill No. 10 provided the person was not eligible until the person had served ½ of the statutorily mandated portion of the Level V sentence. (2) Making clear that the person’s attorney may file the sentence modification for the person. (3) Making clear that an application for a sentence modification may be filed by those who have served the period of incarceration provided under paragraph (a)(5) and have good cause. (4) Requiring the Department, on completion of the Department’s eligibility review under paragraph (d)(1), to provide the person with information regarding the person’s right to counsel. (5) Providing that the person may retain a private attorney at the person's own expense or request the court refer the person to the Office of Defense Services, and that the person may proceed without an attorney only as provided under court rules. (6) Requiring the Department to biennially conduct the eligibility review required under paragraph (d)(1). Senate Bill No. 10 would have required the Department to make these determinations annually. (7) Requiring the Department to provide to the court, with an application for sentence modification the Department files, a written statement of the satisfied requirements under this Act that form the Department’s basis for recommending the sentence modification. (8) Requiring the Department to provide to the person, the person’s attorney of record, or the Office of Defense Services a written statement of the Department’s reasons for not recommending a sentence modification, including the unsatisfied requirements of this Act that form the Department’s basis for not recommending the sentence modification. (9) Authorizing the court to summarily dismiss an application that does not include the statements from the Department required by this Act, except for an application based solely on the person’s serious medical illness or infirmity. (10) Authorizing the court to summarily dismiss an application if the court determines summary dismissal is warranted. (11) Giving the court discretion to determine how long a person whose application for sentence modification is denied because the court determines the person constitutes a substantial risk to the community or the person’s application lacks good cause. This Act provides the period set by the court may not exceed 3 years. (12) Making clear that if the court denies an application for sentence modification based on a person’s serious medical illness or infirmity, the person may submit a subsequent application if at least 60 days have passed since the date of the court’s denial and if the application demonstrates a material change in the person’s circumstances.
This Act is the second leg of a constitutional amendment to modernize the bail provisions within the Delaware Constitution and clarify the power of the General Assembly to enumerate certain felony offenses for which, or circumstances under which, pretrial release on bail may not be allowed. The first leg of this constitutional amendment was Senate Substitute No. 1 for Senate Bill No. 11 of the 152nd General Assembly, published in Chapter 283 of Volume 84 of the Laws of Delaware. On passage of this second leg by this General Assembly this amendment will become part of the Delaware Constitution. The current constitutional provision providing that only “capital offenses” are potentially not bailable first appeared in its present form in the Delaware Constitution of 1792. At that time, “capital offenses” included many more offenses than the term does today. For example, manslaughter, rape, robbery, burglary, and assaults with weapons were capital offenses, and therefore included as crimes for which a court could order pretrial detention. Thus, over time, certain crimes that the Framers included as potentially not bailable are currently bailable. Presently, a Delaware state court judge cannot order preventive detention in any non-capital case. Instead, the judge can only attempt to set the bail so high that a defendant cannot make it, which means that any defendant, no matter how dangerous and no matter the circumstance, can obtain release if the defendant can fund the bail—even if that defendant poses a certain flight risk or a known threat of harm to the public or to a specific person, such as a witness or victim. This Act is one step toward completing a pretrial release-detention continuum requiring specific evidence-based detention decisions that seek to maximize public safety while minimizing pretrial detention for those for whom detention is not required. Specifically, this Act will do all of the following: (1) Retain the express declaration of a general right to have bail set in a criminal case. (2) Provide that the crimes for which bail may be withheld are capital murder, where the evidentiary proof is positive or presumption of the accusation great, and other specifically identified felony offenses determined by and under procedures prescribed by law where the evidentiary proof is positive or presumption of the accusation great. (3) Ensure that an additional condition precedent to bail being withheld in non-capital cases is a finding by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the person’s appearance at court proceedings, reasonably assure the protection of the community, victims, witnesses, or any other person, and reasonably maintain the integrity of the judicial process, such that the defendant will not obstruct or attempt to obstruct justice. With the adoption of this Act, Delaware can progress toward the type of modern bail system that has been increasingly adopted by our sister states through amendment of their state constitutions, when needed, and the development of statutory procedures that provide, in appropriate cases, pre-trial detention without bail. And this Act does so by adopting the standards recommended by authoritative sources including the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Uniform Law Commission, the National Center for State Courts, the American Bar Association, and the numerous state legislatures and court systems that have studied pretrial detention and retained or incorporated them in their own state constitutions and laws. This Act, by itself, would not allow that a person charged with a non-capital crime could be held without bail. Rather, no person could be subject to a preventive detention hearing in a non-capital case until the General Assembly revises Chapter 21 of Title 11 of the Delaware Code to prescribe by law the specific felony offenses, circumstances, and procedures under which detention without bail may occur. The General Assembly has made the necessary revisions to Chapter 21 of Title 11 through the adoption of Senate Bill No. 12 of the 152nd General Assembly, published as Chapter 473 of Volume 84 of the Laws of Delaware, which was enacted on September 30, 2024, and will take effect 6 months after the enactment of this Act. This Act requires a greater than majority vote for passage because § 1 of Article XVI of the Delaware Constitution requires the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members elected to each house of the General Assembly when the General Assembly amends the Delaware Constitution.