Maryland at risk for crises

Alex Pavlak’s response to Todd Snitchler’s letter proposed an interesting, likely viable, solution to the current electricity shortage facing the grid (Replace coal-burning power plants with reliable alternatives, Sept. 6). Of course, that will require the president to declare a national emergency. So far, no one has even asked for such a declaration. It is time to do so.

It is a simple fact that if the PJM grid goes down, most of America’s and certainly most of the East Coast’s national defense capacity will be without electric power. That is, indeed, a crisis.

Mr. Snitchler conveniently overlooked the reasons for Maryland’s energy policies. Maryland’s coast is among the most vulnerable in the nation to climate change. Sea level rise, salt-water intrusion, ocean acidification, and Bay temperatures rising are all real threats to Maryland’s economy. Any of these could become a crisis.

Maryland did not, in fact, shutter any power plants. Those plant owners saw higher profits elsewhere. As the song says, they, “Took the money and run.” If too many leave too rapidly, there will indeed be an electricity crisis.

PJM, the overseer of grid operations for Maryland and many adjacent states, was able to keep certain power plants open by, essentially, throwing money at them. This is not a viable long-term solution. We need such a plan.

We now have, potentially at least, multiple crises. Climate, energy, national security are among them and all begging for attention. We have no major agency with the authority to implement any solution. That could require a presidential emergency declaration.

We must create the clarity for such a declaration.

PJM could define the electricity crises. NOAA could define the climate crisis. The Defense secretary could define the national security crisis. The Energy secretary could then define the options for solving these problems for those participating. Maryland needs to ask for such clarification and solutions. Then we can ask for the emergency declaration.

Likely, there are multiple options, all of them with pros, cons and costs. But do we really want our lands flooded, our grid collapsed, and our national security at risk?

I think not.

— Bill Temmink, Joppa

Maryland can lead the charge for clean energy

The Sept. 5 article regarding approval by President Biden for offshore wind turbines to be situated off the coast of Ocean City documents a longstanding aspiration for environmental organizations, state legislators and union members who will directly benefit from the creation of many skilled, good-paying jobs (White House OKs Maryland wind energy project to be built about 10 miles off Ocean City).

The article proclaims the optimal projection that laid-off Bethlehem steelworkers can find new union jobs producing steel cylinders for wind turbines. While Paul Pinsky, Maryland Energy Administration Director approves the project, citing its contribution to bringing clean energy to the state and enhancing the energy grid, Republican Andy Harris opposes it due to his belief that turbines will harm marine life and the environment, combined with their high overall cost.

His argument can be negated by the documented occurrence of turtles and fish taking residence around the base of turbines, which is common surrounding shipwrecks. Placing the turbines 10 miles from shore will greatly limit bird-turbine as migration occurs closer to shore. The fish and Wildlife Service also found that painting one blade black increases turbine visibility for birds.

Local officials have long voiced opposition to the prospect of offshore wind due to its impedance on beachcombers’ spectacular view of the horizon, but wind projects in Rhode Island have lured curious patrons.

Maryland can lead the charge for clean energy, expand the power grid, reduce air pollution, meet the goals of the Climate Solutions Now Act of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 60% by 2031, propelling the economy with sustainable jobs while reducing the prevalence of asthma and respiratory illness by adding offshore wind to the mix.

— Gail Landy, Gaithersburg

Case closed on Moore and Bronze Star

I write as a U.S. Army veteran amidst the arguments over Gov. Wes Moore’s Bronze Star to say he admitted to an error on an application form years ago and the case is closed (Maryland veterans divided over Wes Moore’s Bronze Star claim, Sept. 7). The military and civilian world has become too jumbled. For example, your paper wrote that Moore used “a legendary military model in coining his gubernatorial slogan—‘Leave no one behind.’” True, nemo resideo (“no one left behind”) was used as long ago as the Roman Legions. But the slogan today is also used by the United Nations and countless countries and foundations to address sustainable development. And in this manner, “Leave No One Behind” was used by candidate Moore to address the economic inequalities in Maryland that underlie many of today’s social, economic, education, health and even crime problems.

— Stan Heuisler, Baltimore