/* */ /* Mailchimp integration */
archive,paged,author,author-kathleen,author-4,paged-6,author-paged-6,stockholm-core-1.0.8,select-child-theme-ver-1.1,select-theme-ver-5.1.5,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,menu-animation-underline,header_top_hide_on_mobile,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-6.0.2,vc_responsive

Distinguished Climatologist Joins A Better Delaware Advisory Board

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  WILMINGTON, Del. — David R. Legates, Ph.D. has joined the Advisory Board of A Better Delaware, a non-partisan public policy and political advocacy organization which supports pro-growth, pro-jobs policies and greater transparency and accountability in Delaware’s state government.

Legates is a retired tenured professor of climatology, geography, and spatial sciences in the Department of Geography at the University of Delaware and a retired adjunct professor in the Department of Applied Economics and Statistics. He has served as research scientist at the Southern Regional Climate Center, chief research scientist at the Center for Computational Geosciences, and visiting research scientist at the National Climatic Data Center. He recently served as the Executive Director of the US Global Change Research Program.

Legates has been published more than 125 times in refereed journals, conference proceedings, and monograph series and has made more than 250 professional presentations. A former Delaware state climatologist, in Sept. 2020 Legates was appointed to Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Observation and Prediction at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Chris Kenny, Chairman and Founder of A Better Delaware announced the addition of Legates to the Advisory Board last week. “David Legates is a leading voice in the area of climate science who will offer A Better Delaware sound guidance as the First State navigates the many challenges it faces as a coastal state with vast farmlands and open spaces,” Kenny said. “David understands both the science and the regulatory landscape surrounding issues of safe energy generation, efficient transmission, environmental hazard exposure and climate volatility.”

“I’m honored to join the Advisory Board of A Better Delaware,” Legates said. “Our state faces a number of challenges in the area of energy production and requires a pragmatic approach that keeps taxpayers and businesses at the forefront. To that end, I’m eager to share my experience to help advocate for responsible policy”.

“Dr. Legates is a welcome addition to our Advisory Board,” said Kathleen Rutherford, Executive Director of A Better Delaware. “It is imperative that Delaware not follow other states in rapidly moving away from legacy energy production to renewables without adequate intermediate steps. David Legates will guide ABD as we advocate for policy that supports reliable and cost-effective sources of energy for all Delawareans.”


Delawareans are Likely Suffering the ‘1970s- Level Inflation’

From: Charlie Copeland, Caesar Rodney Institute

A nationwide recession in the next 12 months is almost a certainty, but Delaware is already suffering from “stagflation” not seen since the 1970s. The Delaware Legislature needs to move very carefully in the 2023 session and stay out of the economy.
Becoming like California and damaging small businesses and employers is not a successful growth strategy during very tumultuous times. Caution should be the watchword.

The two charts below are from the St. Louis Federal ReserveChart 1 shows the percent change in Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) – The Fed’s preferred inflation measure.

Chart 1 – Personal Consumption Expenditures: Chain-type Price Index

(Shaded areas indicate U.S. recessions.)

(Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Fred.stlouisfed.org)

Chart 2 shows the Federal Funds Rate, the interest rate set by the Fed in response to its perception of the economy. The charts run from January 1959 through August 2022. Recessions are marked in gray.

Chart 2 – Federal Funds Effective Rate

(Shaded areas indicate U.S. recessions.)

(Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Fred.stlouisfed.org)

It is clear that before every recession, the Fed raised interest rates. The rise in rates was commensurate with the rate of inflation. This relationship between the amount of inflation and the size of the interest rate hike implies that the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates a lot more in the near future.

With the highest inflation seen in 40 years, a deep recession, like that of the early 1980s, is a strong possibility.


The Atlanta Federal Reserve has a tool, myCPI, which attempts to “personalize” the effects of inflation onto the individual household.

For instance, a 40-year-old single parent with a high-school diploma and two kids earning $50,000 a year is experiencing 25% higher inflation than the National reported inflation – 10% versus 8.2%. The lower the income, the higher the inflation impact.

This Fed data shows that low-income households are being crushed. According to the U.S. Census, 256,408 Delawareans are likely suffering from this “1970s-level inflation,” which is just over 25% of the State’s population.

In addition, in September, workforce participation in Delaware dropped to its lowest level ever (excluding a one-time during COVID-19) to 60.3% (NOTE: This rate was frequently over 70% in the 1980s and 1990s).

Locally, the Delaware Department of Labor reports that Delaware has 1.4% fewer nonfarm jobs today than before the pandemic. Fewer local jobs are also confirmed by the Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis, which reports that New Castle County’s economy is 2.8% smaller than it was 20 years ago.

In short, in Delaware, there is high inflation while there is no growth – the definition of “stagflation.”


While a nationwide recession is likely coming, Delaware already suffers from “1970s-like stagflation” – high inflation and no growth. Now is not the time for big government legislative or regulatory expansions. To the contrary, now is the perfect time to stop killing the economy with “kindness.”

The advice of the Caesar Rodney Institute is that for the 2023 legislative session, the Delaware General Assembly should pause and stop further strangulation of the economy until local stagflation is gone and the national recession ends.

Changes in Unemployment Rate by State

From: WalletHub

September’s jobs report showed a slowdown in growth. The economy gained 263,000 nonfarm payroll jobs, down from 315,000 the previous month. In September, there were notable gains in sectors including health care and leisure and hospitality.

Now, the U.S. unemployment rate sits at 3.5%. We have come a long way from the nearly historic high of 14.7% in April 2020, due to a combination of vaccinations and states removing restrictions. However, inflation and the potential of a recession threaten to push the unemployment rate higher again if Federal Reserve rate increases are not able to stave them off.

In order to take stock of how unemployment rates are changing throughout the U.S., WalletHub compared the 50 states and the District of Columbia based on six key metrics that compare unemployment rate statistics from the latest month for which data is available (September 2022) to key dates in 2022, 2021, 2020 and 2019. 

Main Findings

State Rank
Minnesota 1
North Dakota 2
Vermont 3
New Hampshire 4
Missouri 5
Florida 6
Utah 7
Virginia 8
South Dakota 9
Nebraska 10
New Jersey 11
Alabama 12
Rhode Island 13
Iowa 14
Georgia 15
Kansas 16
Louisiana 17
Massachusetts 18
Idaho 19
Indiana 20
Montana 21
Wyoming 22
Hawaii 23
Wisconsin 24
Mississippi 25
Maine 26
California 27
South Carolina 28
Connecticut 29
Pennsylvania 30
Oklahoma 31
Tennessee 32
Colorado 33
Washington 34
North Carolina 35
Maryland 36
Arkansas 37
New York 38
Arizona 39
Michigan 40
New Mexico 41
West Virginia 42
Oregon 43
Ohio 44
Kentucky 45
Texas 46
Delaware 47
Nevada 48
District of Columbia 49
Alaska 50
Illinois 51

Unemployment Rate Changes by State

Overall Rank  State Unemployment Rate (September 2022)  Change in Unemployment (September 2022 vs August 2022)  Change in Unemployment (September 2022 vs September 2021)  Change in Unemployment (September 2022 vs September 2020)  Change in Unemployment (September 2022 vs September 2019)  Not Seasonally Adjusted Continued Claims (September 2022 vs August 2022)
1 Minnesota 2.0% 5.9% -36.1% -68.3% -44.1% -10.5%
2 North Dakota 2.2% -1.8% -30.1% -60.5% 7.0% -41.0%
3 Vermont 2.1% 3.0% -30.8% -51.6% -20.4% -32.6%
4 New Hampshire 2.2% 6.9% -31.5% -63.8% -20.1% -32.9%
5 Missouri 2.4% -2.1% -39.7% -59.4% -23.0% -28.7%
6 Florida 2.5% -8.9% -34.0% -70.0% -17.1% -7.1%
7 Utah 2.1% 1.9% -12.7% -49.2% -10.8% -3.3%
8 Virginia 2.6% -0.8% -22.8% -58.7% -3.1% -23.8%
9 South Dakota 2.3% 0.9% -22.9% -40.1% -15.6% -6.2%
10 Nebraska 2.2% 5.7% -8.7% -31.6% -28.9% -18.9%
11 New Jersey 3.3% -18.0% -43.1% -59.4% -6.3% -18.3%
12 Alabama 2.6% 1.1% -17.3% -57.2% -10.4% -17.4%
13 Rhode Island 3.1% 8.0% -42.7% -67.9% -15.3% -33.2%
14 Iowa 2.7% 4.0% -32.4% -41.8% -3.2% -20.1%
15 Georgia 2.8% -1.0% -18.9% -53.2% -17.9% -14.4%
16 Kansas 2.6% 3.4% -13.2% -49.1% -15.8% -9.0%
17 Louisiana 3.4% -4.9% -29.3% -61.7% -28.8% -13.4%
18 Massachusetts 3.4% -4.1% -33.2% -65.3% 12.1% -20.9%
19 Idaho 2.8% 4.8% -13.1% -38.1% -0.9% -24.9%
20 Indiana 2.8% 1.7% -4.5% -54.2% -13.0% -6.7%
21 Montana 2.9% 3.4% -6.8% -39.6% -17.0% -20.9%
22 Wyoming 3.3% 4.6% -21.3% -41.9% -19.0% -20.1%
23 Hawaii 3.5% -13.1% -26.7% -73.1% 71.6% -5.9%
24 Wisconsin 3.2% 3.7% -5.1% -43.3% -2.9% -27.6%
25 Mississippi 3.6% 1.6% -26.2% -47.8% -36.2% -16.8%
26 Maine 3.3% 5.1% -27.7% -25.0% 11.9% -23.4%
27 California 3.9% -4.8% -38.7% -61.3% -5.6% -5.3%
28 South Carolina 3.2% 1.2% -15.6% -45.0% 33.2% -9.3%
29 Connecticut 4.0% -0.9% -26.4% -54.2% 12.6% -43.8%
30 Pennsylvania 4.1% -3.3% -29.2% -54.6% -11.4% -35.2%
31 Oklahoma 3.2% 5.1% 3.0% -44.0% 2.7% -17.8%
32 Tennessee 3.4% -0.2% -9.4% -50.1% 1.6% -7.2%
33 Colorado 3.4% -1.9% -26.8% -43.8% 40.3% -5.9%
34 Washington 3.7% 0.6% -20.7% -51.2% -8.8% -2.9%
35 North Carolina 3.6% 2.6% -18.8% -41.7% -6.6% -7.1%
36 Maryland 4.0% -7.0% -30.2% -40.6% 5.2% -10.1%
37 Arkansas 3.5% 3.9% 0.9% -39.7% -0.8% -15.1%
38 New York 4.3% -8.9% -28.5% -58.6% 6.1% -15.1%
39 Arizona 3.7% 6.8% -9.7% -46.7% -20.3% -9.4%
40 Michigan 4.1% 0.1% -26.0% -52.5% -2.1% -12.6%
41 New Mexico 4.2% -4.3% -31.9% -52.7% -12.1% -3.5%
42 West Virginia 4.0% 1.7% -12.5% -46.8% -21.2% -16.8%
43 Oregon 3.8% 2.7% -13.5% -47.5% 12.0% -10.1%
44 Ohio 4.0% 1.3% -14.2% -46.9% -7.8% -12.6%
45 Kentucky 3.8% -0.3% -19.4% -22.7% -7.2% -8.4%
46 Texas 4.0% -2.3% -20.3% -45.9% 16.9% -5.5%
47 Delaware 4.3% -4.7% -14.7% -43.3% 14.9% -28.7%
48 Nevada 4.4% 1.2% -19.7% -67.5% 15.6% -4.2%
49 District of Columbia 4.7% -9.0% -27.4% -46.3% -9.6% -8.6%
50 Alaska 4.4% -4.1% -23.5% -39.7% -16.6% 1.7%
51 Illinois 4.5% 0.2% -17.3% -49.0% 19.7% -13.6%


Change in Unemployment (2022 September vs 2022 August)
Biggest Decrease
  • 1. New Jersey
  • 2. Hawaii
  • 3. District of Columbia
  • 4. Florida
  • 5. New York
Change in Unemployment (2022 September vs 2022 August)
Smallest Decrease
  • 47. Nebraska
  • 48. Minnesota
  • 49. Arizona
  • 50. New Hampshire
  • 51. Rhode Island
Change in Unemployment (2022 September vs 2021 September)
Biggest Decrease
  • 1. New Jersey
  • 2. Rhode Island
  • 3. Missouri
  • 4. California
  • 5. Minnesota
Change in Unemployment (2022 September vs 2021 September)
Smallest Decrease
  • 47. Montana
  • 48. Wisconsin
  • 49. Indiana
  • 50. Arkansas
  • 51. Oklahoma


Not All Taxes Are Created Equal

From: Tax Foundation

What You’ll Learn

  1. Discover why there are better and worse ways for governments to raise a dollar of revenue.
  2. Compare the economic impact of the three basic tax types—taxes on what you earn, buy, and own—including three specific taxes within each category.
  3. Learn about the basics of “dynamic scoring,” one tool economists can use to compare the economic and revenue impact of different tax policies.


There are better and worse ways to raise a dollar of revenue. That’s because no two taxes impact the economy the same.

One way to think about this is as a hierarchy: Which taxes are most and least harmful for long-term economic growth? This hierarchy is determined by which factors are most mobile, and thus most sensitive to high tax rates—in other words, what economic activities, if taxed, can easily be moved, reduced, or otherwise changed to avoid that tax?

Taxes on the most mobile factors in the economy, such as capital, cause the most distortions and have the most negative impact. Taxes on factors that can’t easily be moved, such as land, are the most stable and least distortive.

It’s relatively easy for someone to invest less to avoid a capital gains tax, for example. It’s much harder for someone to pull up stakes and move their home to avoid a property tax. This difference is why capital gains taxes distort people’s decisions, and thus the economy, more than property taxes.

A Hierarchy of Tax Types, What are the basic economic impact of taxes? tax economic impact Basic tax types

Taxes on what you earn

Corporate Income Taxes

Corporate income taxes are taxes on business profits earned by C corporations. The corporate income tax directly increases the cost of making investments in capital, like machinery and equipment, which businesses and workers use to be more productive. When businesses and workers are more productive, the economy grows. So, by increasing the cost of making investments, the corporate income tax discourages investment and productivity growth, creating one of the largest negative impacts on economic growth compared to other taxes.

Individual Income Taxes

Individual income taxes are applied to wages and salaries, business income from pass-through businesses like sole proprietorships and LLCs, and investment income. High marginal tax rates, the amount of additional tax paid for every additional dollar earned as income, reduce individual incentives to work and business incentives to invest. That means individual income taxes also have a negative effect on the economy.

Payroll Taxes

Payroll taxes are paid on the wages and salaries of employees to finance social insurance programs like Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance. Payroll taxes apply only to labor income, and not to business income like the previous two forms of tax. For this reason, payroll taxes are one of the least harmful ways to raise revenue, as the supply of labor is less responsive to taxation than the supply of capital. That said, it’s important to note that employees bear the burden of payroll taxes, resulting in lower wages.

Taxes on what you buy

Gross Receipts Taxes

Gross receipts taxes are applied to a company’s gross sales without allowing any deductions for costs. Unlike a sales tax or a value-added tax (VAT), gross receipts taxes are applied to business-to-business transactions and final consumer purchases. Since the tax is applied at each transaction in a production chain, without allowing for any deductions, it leads to tax pyramiding, where the many layers of tax are built into the final price of the good. By providing an advantage to businesses with short production chains, while harming those with long production chains, gross receipts taxes distort business decisions and the economy.

Excise Taxes

Excise taxes are imposed on a specific good or activity, such as cigarettes, alcohol, and fuel. Because of their narrow base (applying a tax to a small selection of goods or services) excise taxes distort production and consumption choices. Sometimes this distortion is by design. For example, a tax on cigarettes to discourage smoking; however, this distortion makes excise taxes an inefficient source of revenue. Excise taxes with broader bases, or those levied in direct connection with the consumption of public goods, like gas taxes paying for road usage, better resemble pure consumption taxes and have less distortive effects.

Sales Taxes

Sales taxes are imposed on retail sales of goods and services. Ideally, sales taxes are imposed on all final retail sales of goods and services, but not on intermediate business-to-business transactions in the production chain, as in the case of gross receipts taxes. Sales taxes are less distortive than capital and income taxes because they do not affect decisions to work or invest, and when appropriately structured, they do not lead to tax pyramiding or changes in consumption.

Taxes on what you own

Wealth Taxes

Wealth taxes are imposed annually on an individual’s net wealth. Net wealth is calculated by taking the market value of their total owned assets—the price those assets would get if sold—and subtracting their liabilities—everything that person owes, including loans, mortgages, and other debts. Wealth taxes place a high tax burden on the normal return to capital (the amount required for an investor to break-even on an investment) and a lighter burden on the supernormal returns to capital (amounts above and beyond the normal return); this is the opposite of ideal tax policy. By placing a higher burden on the normal return to capital, wealth taxes distort investment decisions and can alter entrepreneurship, venture capital funding, and even where talent is located (in Silicon Valley vs. Hong Kong, for example).

Estate Taxes

Estate taxes are levied on the value of property that is transferred to heirs upon the death of the original owner and can be thought of as a one-time wealth tax. These taxes lead to unproductive tax planning, increase the tax burden on investment by encouraging people to consume their income rather than invest it, and may have negative effects on entrepreneurship.

Property Taxes

Property taxes can be levied on immovable or “real” property (i.e., land and buildings) and personal property (i.e., cars, machinery, office equipment, etc.). When properly structured, property taxes can be relatively economically efficient and transparent, such as when they apply to immovable property, like annual taxes on land and buildings. Taxes on immovable property have a relatively small effect on decisions to work and invest, though they can impact where a person or business chooses to locate. Because personal property is much more mobile, and thus more sensitive to taxation, personal property taxes distort investment decisions, complicate business tax compliance, and reduce economic growth.

Bang for Your Buck: Ranking 5 Hypothetical Tax Changes

Instead of focusing on the relative harm of different tax types, think about it in the reverse: Which taxes can be reduced to improve the economy? One way to answer this question is to use dynamic scoring to produce what we refer to as a “bang for your buck” analysis—a ranking of how much economic growth is produced per dollar of revenue forgone by different tax reductions.

The chart below considers five U.S. federal tax policy changes and the resulting effect on the size of long-run economic output, including a change in the corporate income tax base called full expensing; a 1 percentage-point reduction in the corporate income tax; a 1 percentage-point reduction in the individual income tax rate for all tax brackets; an increase in the maximum child tax credit to $2,500; and a decrease in the capital gains tax rate of 5 percentage points.

As you can see below, cutting the capital gains tax rate is the least efficient option to produce economic growth. Dollar-for-dollar, full expensing, which allows companies to fully and immediately deduct the cost of all new investments, is the most efficient way for policymakers to generate economic growth through the tax code.

The relative increase in economic output that tax reductions generate per dollar of lost revenue clearly illustrates that not all taxes (and not all tax cuts) are equal.
Full Expensing Bang for Buck, What are the basic economic impact of taxes? tax economic impact

Earn It to Get It: Breaking the Cycle of Dependency Through Work

From: The Foundation for Government Accountability

Far too many Americans are trapped in a cycle of welfare dependencyand it’s by design. Decades of bad government policies have staged the latest war—the “war on work.”

The pandemic is largely behind us, and life is essentially back to normal—but the public health emergency persists, which means work requirements for programs like food stamps remain suspended. Welfare programs disincentivize work and, throughout the pandemic, ended up paying more in benefits than many jobs. Now, unsurprisingly, businesses across the U.S. are struggling to fill open positions—with a record-breaking more than 10 million jobs unfilled in 2022—and Americans are struggling.

Work is empowering. It gives a person a sense of accomplishment and independence, and it brings opportunities. One Missouri organization is helping empower individuals to move from welfare to work to pursue fulfilling work and live self-sufficient lives.

In the summer of 2000 James and Marsha Whitford opened Watered Gardens, a non-government-funded ministry dedicated to empowering individuals to break the cycle of dependency by leading them to a path to self-sufficiency. The Joplin, Missouri organization offers programs and guidance to low-income individuals to help them be part of their own solution and lead them away from the unemployment line and into the workforce.

Whitford first found his calling to help others working as a physical therapist. While working with patients to gain mobility, he found that if he did not challenge them to work to improve, it was difficult for them to move forward.

James found that what his patients needed then was not so different from what struggling individuals need now—the encouragement and resources to break free from the cycle of dependency through work. “It’s so exciting to see people take a step away from dependency and into flourishing life,” Whitford says.

Empowering others through work

James and Marsha’s vision to empower others to become contributors to their own upward mobility has proven successful. Watered Gardens has helped many individuals find purpose through work by helping them gain the skills necessary to succeed through training programs, relationship building, and an “earn it to get it” mindset.

Here’s what staff and other individuals at Watered Gardens have to say about the cycle of dependency and the value of work…

Work is the textbook solution for escaping dependency.

“Challenge folks… incorporate, exchange, incorporate work. If we don’t do that, then they’ll never develop what is necessary to escape… poverty.”  –James Whitford, co-founder

Welfare programs do not create opportunities.

“The government robs you of the choices and the opportunities that you should have if you’re caring for yourself… Not contributing impacts me mentally, so I feel certain that for folks who don’t have that as part of their life, that has to be a key component to how they feel about themselves, about their value, and their worth.” –Beth Zimmerman, Director of Care Coordinator

Welfare programs employ classic bait-and-hook tactics.

“To get help with housing, you’ve got to sign up for food stamps first… and it becomes a little bit of a hook.” -Doug Gamble, Outreach Center Director

Welfare disguises itself as a safety net.

“I’m a generational welfare recipient… I was on government assistance… so I had all this stuff… It was my security net, but I didn’t know that I was capable of employment.” –Jocelyn Brisson, Shelter Director

Welfare and dependency can become a way of life.

“I never realized that I could be somebody. I now have the opportunity to study, to grow, to learn, and how to build healthy relationships.” -Tony Sutton, Forge Student

Escaping the cycle of dependency can be difficult.

“I didn’t think that I’d be able to hold a full-time job ever again, and then four weeks ago, I got my first full-time job cleaning houses… I get to go back and be a functioning adult that has self-worth and value again. That is an amazing feeling.”  -Misty, Watered Gardens participant

Through organizations like Watered Gardens Ministries, low-income individuals and families can find purpose through compassion, work, and a sense of responsibility.

To learn more about how welfare reforms can help Americans break the cycle of dependency and experience the power of work, visit our Welfare Reforms page.


The 10 most polluted states in the US

From: The Hill

(NEXSTAR) — How clean are the air and water in your state?

Using 2021 data, U.S. News and World Reports’ feature on the “Best States” has ranked U.S. states on several metrics, including economics, education and health care. The listing also measures natural environment, which is based on a state’s air/water quality and pollution levels.

Pollution was determined based on air and water emissions from industry and utilities, and overall measures to long-term human health effects, using information from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Below are the most polluted (no. 50-40) and least polluted (no. 10-1) in U.S. News’ Pollution Rankings.

States with the worst pollution

50. Louisiana

49. Nevada

48. Indiana

47. Delaware

46. Utah

45. Ohio

44. Oregon

43. Tennessee

42. Illinois

41. Alabama

40. Texas

Louisiana ranks dead last, coming in as the most-polluted state in the U.S., according to EPA information.

A January 2022 study by Tulane University found very high incidences of cancer in Louisiana, the second-highest in the U.S. At least 85 cancer cases per year in the state were due to exposure to high levels of air pollution, the study found. Authors included data for neighborhoods in an area between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, which is locally known as “Cancer Alley.”

The state of Nevada ranks as the second-most polluted state, according to EPA information. Just last year, Nevada ranked among the “unhealthiest” states for air quality in the American Lung Association’s State of the Air report.

At that time, Melissa Ramos, manager of the Nevada ALA’s Clean Air Advocacy, said the Classic Car loophole was partly to blame for the state’s high emissions. Under the state’s Classic Vehicle Insurance policies, vehicles bearing certain license plates are exempt from emissions testing. Some tightening of the laws on classic vehicles is coming Jan. 1, 2023, however.

The least polluted states

10. Idaho

9. Colorado

8. Maine

7. Rhode Island

6. California

5. Wyoming

4. New Mexico

3. South Dakota

2. New Hampshire

1. Vermont

The state of Vermont is aware of its relatively good bill of health.

The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources writes that “Vermont’s air quality is considered to be among the best in the nation.” The agency notes, however, that Vermont’s air is not pollutant-free.

Interesting: Even though California ranks sixth among the least polluted states, many of its cities rank among America’s most polluted. Research from the American Lung Association ranked cities by ozone pollution, year-round particle pollution, and short-term particle pollution. California areas that ranked in the ALA’s top 10 most polluted cities in all three pollution categories include Los Angeles-Long Beach, Bakersfield, Fresno-Madera-Hanford, and Sacramento-Roseville.


Six common air pollutants identified and regulated by the EPA are carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen oxides, ground-level ozone, particle pollution (also called “particulate matter”), and sulfur oxides. Other air pollutants include asbestos, fuel oils and kerosene, and benzene.


Who’s running, updated: Delaware’s Sept. 13 primary

From: Delaware Live

With Delaware’s primary election just days away and early voting underway, time is running out to answer any questions you might still have.

If you’re unsure who’s running in your district — or even what district you’re in — you’ve come to the right place.

To find your polling location, click here. Scroll down for a list of candidates by district.

The primary election will be held Tuesday, Sept. 13.

The 151st General Assembly comes to an end in November, meaning all 21 Senate seats and 41 House seats are up for grabs. The deadline to file for election has passed.

Three of the state’s executive offices — attorney general, treasurer and auditor of accounts — will also be on the ballot. Each office’s incumbent is running for re-election, including embattled State Auditor Kathy McGuiness, who is the only one with a primary challenger.

RELATED: How to vote in Delaware’s upcoming elections

Six state representatives and senators are not seeking re-election: Sens. Ernie Lopez and Bruce Ennis, and Reps. David Bentz, John Kowalko, Andria Bennett and Steve Smyk, who is running for state Senate.

The House district previously represented by Gerald Brady, who resigned in Feb. 2022, will no longer exist after November. During redistricting, a new district was created in the Long Neck and Oak Orchard area of Sussex County to reflect population growth there.

The general election will be held Tuesday, Nov. 8.

Some candidates have been running for months while others were only nominated by their party last week.

Those include: Justin Brant, R-RD 30, Brent Burge, R-RD 10, Chris Dalton, L-SD 21, Joan Godwin, R-RD 24, Benjamin Gregg, R-RD 12, Alexander Homich, R-RD 5, Ade Kuforiji, D-RD 34, Mark Parks, N-RD 5, Brittany Ramone-Gomez, R-RD 23, Daniel Schmick, R-SD 5, Jason Stewart, R-RD 31, and Shane Stoneman, R-RD 7.

In most cases, those candidates were nominated by their political parties because no other candidate had filed to run.

Below is a list of each statewide seat, Senate and House seat, and county office along with the candidates who have filed and the voter registration totals by political party. Click a candidate’s name to view their campaign website. If you’re not able to click a candidate’s name, they don’t have a campaign website listed with the Department of Elections.

Also listed are voter registration totals by political party. The first figure represents the number of Democrats registered in the district, the second figure shows the number of Republicans and the third figure represents voters belonging to a third party or no party.

An asterisk (*) indicates a candidate is an incumbent. If there is more than one candidate listed for a given party, there will be a primary election for that seat. If there isn’t, that candidate will advance directly to the general election. Voter registration totals are not available for county races.

Not sure what district you’re in? Click here to find out.

Statewide candidates

Primary election delaware

United States Representative (At-Large)

  • Democratic candidate: Lisa Blunt Rochester*
  • Republican candidate: Lee Murphy
  • Libertarian candidate: Cody McNutt
  • Nonpartisan candidate: David Rogers
  • Declared write-in candidate: Edward Shlikas (unaffiliated)
  • Statewide voter breakdown: D – 362,002 / R – 209,358 / other – 189,428

Attorney General

  • Democratic candidate: Kathy Jennings*
  • Republican candidate: Julianne Murray
  • Statewide voter breakdown: D – 362,002 / R – 209,358 / other – 189,428

State Treasurer

  • Democratic candidate: Colleen Davis*
  • Republican candidate: Greg Coverdale
  • Statewide voter breakdown: D – 362,002 / R – 209,358 / other – 189,428

Auditor of Accounts

State Senate filed candidates

State Senate Candidates


Senate District 1

  • Areas Served: Wilmington North, Carrcroft
  • Democratic candidate: Sarah McBride*
  • Republican candidate: No candidate filed
  • Voter breakdown: D – 22,116 / R – 7,376 / other – 8,662

Senate District 2

  • Areas Served: Wilmington Manor, Southbridge
  • Democratic candidate: Darius Brown*
  • Republican candidate: No candidate filed
  • Voter breakdown: D – 24,210 / R – 3,273 / other – 5,990

Senate District 3

  • Areas Served: Wilmington
  • Democratic candidate: Elizabeth “Tizzy” Lockman*
  • Republican candidate: No candidate filed
  • Voter breakdown: D – 21,876 / R – 3,143 / other – 6,237

Senate District 4

  • Areas Served: Hockessin, Greenville
  • Democratic candidate: Laura Sturgeon*
  • Republican candidate: Ted Kittila
  • Voter breakdown: D – 15,066 / R – 11,656 / other – 10,113

Senate District 5

  • Areas Served: Brandywine Hundred
  • Democratic candidate: Kyle Evans Gay*
  • Republican candidate: Daniel R. Schmick
  • Voter breakdown: D – 17,693 / R – 9,292 / other – 8,838

Senate District 6

  • Areas Served: Rehoboth, Lewes, Milton, Dewey
  • Democratic candidates: Jack BucchioniRuss Huxtable
  • Republican candidate: Steve Smyk
  • Nonpartisan candidate: Gwendolyn “Wendy” Jones
  • Voter breakdown: D – 18,686 / R – 15,593 / other – 11,342

Senate District 7

Senate District 8

  • Areas Served: Newark
  • Democratic candidate: Dave Sokola*
  • Republican candidate: Victor Setting II
  • Voter breakdown: D – 12,958 / R – 7,569 / other – 7,975

Senate District 9

  • Areas Served: Christiana, Brookside
  • Democratic candidate: Jack Walsh*
  • Republican candidate: Brenda Mennella
  • Voter breakdown: D – 16,330 / R – 7,109 / other – 8,886

Senate District 10

  • Areas Served: Middletown, Odessa, Glasgow
  • Democratic candidate: Stephanie Hansen
  • Republican candidate: No candidate filed
  • Voter breakdown: D – 18,102 / R – 9,721 / other – 9,671

Senate District 11

  • Areas Served: Glasgow, Newark
  • Democratic candidate: Bryan Townsend*
  • Republican candidate: No candidate filed
  • Voter breakdown: D – 19,993 / R – 6,164 / other – 8,766

Senate District 12

  • Areas Served: Delaware City, New Castle, St. Georges
  • Democratic candidate: Nicole Poore*
  • Republican candidate: Bill Alexander
  • Voter breakdown: D – 20,497 / R – 8,553 / other – 9,513

Senate District 13

  • Areas Served: Bear
  • Democratic candidate: Marie Pinkney*
  • Republican candidate: No candidate filed
  • Voter breakdown: D – 22,058 / R – 5,291 / other – 7,907

Senate District 14

Senate District 15

  • Areas Served: Harrington, Hartley, Kenton
  • Democratic candidate: No candidate filed
  • Republican candidate: Dave Lawson*
  • Voter breakdown: D – 11,728 / R – 13,943 / other – 10,128

Senate District 16

  • Areas Served: Dover, Frederica, Bowers Beach
  • Democratic candidate: No candidate filed
  • Republican candidates: Colin Bonini*Eric BucksonKim Petters
  • Voter breakdown: D – 14,231 / R – 11,614 / other – 9,857

Senate District 17

  • Areas Served: Dover, Camden, Wyoming
  • Democratic candidate: Trey Paradee*
  • Republican candidate: Ed Ruyter
  • Voter breakdown: D – 18,346 / R – 7,252 / other – 8,652

Senate District 18

  • Areas Served: Milford, Lincoln, Bridgeville
  • Democratic candidate: Billy Devary
  • Republican candidate: Dave Wilson*
  • Voter breakdown: D – 12,799 / R – 14,064 / other – 9,344

Senate District 19

  • Areas Served: Georgetown, Long Neck
  • Democratic candidate: No candidate filed
  • Republican candidate: Brian Pettyjohn*
  • Voter breakdown: D – 13,716 / R – 15,409 / other – 9,382

Senate District 20

  • Areas Served: Ocean View, Millsboro, Bethany, Fenwick Island
  • Democratic candidate: No candidate filed
  • Republican candidate: Gerald Hocker*
  • Voter breakdown: D – 14,234 / R – 19,367 / other – 10,134

Senate District 21

  • Areas Served: Laurel, Seaford, Gumboro
  • Democratic candidate: No candidate filed
  • Republican candidate: Bryant Richardson*
  • Libertarian candidate: Chris Dalton
  • Nonpartisan candidate: Sonja Mehaffey
  • Voter breakdown: D – 11,851 / R – 14,999 / other – 8,402

State House filed candidates

House of Representatives Candidates


Representative District 1

Representative District 2

  • Areas Served: Wilmington
  • Democratic candidates: Stephanie Bolden*, James Taylor
  • Republican candidate: No candidate filed
  • Voter breakdown: D – 12,398 / R – 1,509 / other – 3,431

Representative District 3

  • Areas Served: Wilmington
  • Democratic candidate: Sherry Dorsey Walker*
  • Republican candidate: No candidate filed
  • Voter breakdown: D – 12,081 / R – 1,586 / other – 3,143

Representative District 4

  • Areas Served: Millsboro, Long Neck, Oak Orchard, Angola
  • Democratic candidate: Keegan Worley
  • Republican candidates: Bradley LayfieldJeff Hilovsky
  • Independent Party candidate: Amy Fresh
  • Notes: District will move from Wilmington to Long Neck in November.
  • Voter breakdown: D – 7,596 / R – 8,744 / other – 5,309

Representative District 5

  • Areas Served: Bear
  • Democratic candidate: Kendra Johnson*
  • Republican candidate: Alexander Homich
  • Nonpartisan candidate: Mark Parks
  • Voter breakdown: D – 11,544 / R – 2,070 / other – 3,501

Representative District 6

Representative District 7

  • Areas Served: Claymont, Arden
  • Democratic candidate: Larry Lambert*
  • Republican candidate: Shane Stoneman
  • Voter breakdown: D – 9,532 / R – 3,589 / other – 4,014

Representative District 8

  • Areas Served: Middletown
  • Democratic candidate: Sherae’a Moore*
  • Republican candidate: David Thomas
  • Voter breakdown: D – 10,120 / R – 4,828 / other – 5,009

Representative District 9

  • Areas Served: Odessa
  • Democratic candidate: Terrell Williams
  • Republican candidate: Kevin Hensley*
  • Voter breakdown: D – 9,625 / R – 5,756 / other – 5,098

Representative District 10

  • Areas Served: Brandywine Hundred
  • Democratic candidate: Sean Matthews
  • Republican candidate: Brent Burge
  • Voter breakdown: D – 8,490 / R – 5,576 / other – 4,735

Representative District 11

  • Areas Served: Townsend, Kenton, Hartley
  • Democratic candidate: No candidate filed
  • Republican candidate: Jeff Spiegelman*
  • Voter breakdown: D – 6,546 / R – 6,436 / other – 5,162

Representative District 12

  • Areas Served: Greenville
  • Democratic candidate: Krista Griffith*
  • Republican candidate: R. Benjamin Gregg
  • Voter breakdown: D – 9,768 / R – 6,732 / other – 5,601

Representative District 13

  • Areas Served: Elsmere
  • Democratic candidates: Larry Mitchell*, DeShanna Neal
  • Republican candidate: Carlucci Coelho
  • Voter breakdown: D – 9,528 / R – 3,258 / other – 4,656

Representative District 14

  • Areas Served: Rehoboth Beach, Dewey Beach
  • Democratic candidate: Pete Schwartzkopf*
  • Republican candidate: Carl Phelps
  • Voter breakdown: D – 9,573 / R – 7,046 / other – 5,314

Representative District 15

  • Areas Served: Red Lion, St. Georges
  • Democratic candidate: Valerie Longhurst*
  • Republican candidate: Michael Higgin
  • Voter breakdown: D – 11,055 / R – 3,842 / other – 4,759

Representative District 16

  • Areas Served: New Castle, Minquadale
  • Democratic candidate: Franklin Cooke*
  • Republican candidate: No candidate filed
  • Voter breakdown: D – 12,377 / R – 2,201 / other – 3,644

Representative District 17

  • Areas Served: Delaware City, Wilmington Manor
  • Democratic candidate: Melissa Minor-Brown*
  • Republican candidate: No candidate filed
  • Voter breakdown: D – 11,070 / R – 3,056 / other – 4,414

Representative District 18

  • Areas Served: Christiana
  • Democratic candidates: Martin Willis, Sophie Phillips
  • Republican candidates: Gloria Hope Payne
  • Voter breakdown: D – 9,905 / R – 3,107 / other – 4,289

Representative District 19

  • Areas Served: Stanton, Newport
  • Democratic candidate: Kim Williams*
  • Republican candidate: No candidate filed
  • Voter breakdown: D – 8,799 / R – 4,231 / other 5,238

Representative District 20

  • Areas Served: Milton, Lewes
  • Democratic candidate: Stell Parker Selby
  • Republican candidate: Dallas Wingate
  • Voter breakdown: D – 8,308 / R – 7,630 / other – 5,377

Representative District 21

  • Areas Served: Pike Creek
  • Democratic candidate: Frank Burns
  • Republican candidate: Mike Ramone*
  • Voter breakdown: D – 8,498 / R – 5,123 / other – 5,395

Representative District 22

  • Areas Served: Hockessin
  • Democratic candidate: No candidate filed
  • Republican candidate: Mike Smith*
  • Voter breakdown: D – 8,456 / R – 6,866 / other: 6,050

Representative District 23

  • Areas Served: Newark
  • Democratic candidate: Paul Baumbach*
  • Republican candidate: Brittany Ramone Gomez
  • Voter breakdown: D – 7,353 / R – 4,294 / other – 4,450

Representative District 24

  • Areas Served: Newark
  • Democratic candidate: Ed Osienski*
  • Republican candidate: Joan Godwin
  • Voter breakdown: D – 9,342 / R – 3,438 / other – 4,705

Representative District 25

  • Areas Served: Newark
  • Democratic candidates: Cyndie RomerEdward Klima
  • Republican candidate: Lynn Mey
  • Voter breakdown: D – 7,285 / R – 3,270 / other – 4,169

Representative District 26

Representative District 27

Representative District 28

  • Areas Served: Smyrna, Leipsic
  • Democratic candidate: Bill Carson*
  • Republican candidate: No candidate filed
  • Voter breakdown: D – 9,159 / R – 4,332 / other – 4,710

Representative District 29

  • Areas Served: Cheswold
  • Democratic candidate: William “Bill” Bush*
  • Republican candidate: Marc Wienner
  • Voter breakdown: D – 9,438 / R – 5,317 / other – 4,859

Representative District 30

  • Areas Served: Harrington, Felton
  • Democratic candidate: No candidate filed
  • Republican candidate: Shannon Morris*
  • Libertarian candidate: Justin Brant
  • Voter breakdown: D – 5,827 / R – 7,658 / other – 5,326

Representative District 31

  • Areas Served: Dover
  • Democratic candidate: Sean Lynn*
  • Republican candidate: Jason Stewart
  • Voter breakdown: D – 9,090 / R – 3,236 / other – 4,046

Representative District 32

Representative District 33 

  • Areas Served: Frederica, Milford, Magnolia
  • Democratic candidate: No candidate filed
  • Republican candidate: Charlie Postles*
  • Voter breakdown: D – 6,492 / R – 6,616 / other – 5,088

Representative District 34

  • Areas Served: Camden, Wyoming, Woodside
  • Democratic candidate: Ade Kuforiji
  • Republican candidate: Lyndon Yearick*
  • Nonpartisan candidate: William McVay
  • Voter breakdown: D – 8,104 / R – 6,114 / other – 5,297

Representative District 35

  • Areas Served: Bridgeville, Greenwood
  • Democratic candidate: No candidate filed
  • Republican candidate: Jesse Vanderwende*
  • Voter breakdown: D – 5,951 / R – 7,202 / other – 4,224

Representative District 36

  • Areas Served: Milford, Slaughter Beach
  • Democratic candidate: No candidate filed
  • Republican candidates: Bryan Shupe*Patrick Smith
  • Voter breakdown: D – 6,436 / R – 6,481 / other – 4,683

Representative District 37

  • Areas Served: Georgetown
  • Democratic candidate: No candidate filed
  • Republican candidate: Ruth Briggs King*
  • Voter breakdown: D – 5,625 / R – 6,130 / other – 3,838

Representative District 38

  • Areas Served: Bethany, Millville, Fenwick Island
  • Democratic candidate: No candidate filed
  • Republican candidate: Ron Gray*
  • Voter breakdown: D – 7,675 / R – 11,505 / other – 5,780

Representative District 39

  • Areas Served: Seaford, Blades
  • Democratic candidate: Susan Clifford
  • Republican candidate: Danny Short*
  • Voter breakdown: D – 6,040 / R – 6,502 / other – 3,908

Representative District 40

  • Areas Served: Laurel, Delmar
  • Democratic candidate: No candidate filed
  • Republican candidate: Tim Dukes*
  • Voter breakdown: D – 5,596 / R – 7,773 / other – 4,234

Representative District 41

  • Areas Served: Millsboro, Dagsboro, Frankford, Selbyville, Gumboro
  • Democratic candidate: No candidate filed
  • Republican candidate: Rich Collins*
  • Nonpartisan candidate: Joseph DiPasquale
  • Voter breakdown: D – 6,657 / R – 8,607 / other – 4,601

Countywide candidates

County Candidates

New Castle County 

County Council District 1
County Council District 2
  • Democratic candidate: Dee Durham*
  • Republican candidate: Jamie Collins
County Council District 3
  • Republican candidate: Janet Kilpatrick*
County Council District 4
  • Democratic candidate: Penrose Hollins*
County Council District 5
  • Democratic candidate: Valerie George
County Council District 6
  • Democratic candidate: David Carter*
Register of Wills
  • Democratic candidate: Ciro Poppiti III
Recorder of Deeds
  • Democratic candidate: Michael E. Kozikowski Sr.
  • Democratic candidate: Scott Phillips*
  • Nonpartisan candidate: John Machurek

Kent County

Levy Court District 2
  • Democratic candidate: Jeffrey Hall*
  • Republican candidate: Anthony Egipciaco
Levy Court District 4 
  • Democratic candidate: Dennis Norwood
  • Republican candidates: Morgan Hudson, Robert Scott
Levy Court District 6
  • Republican candidates: Mitch Denham, Paul Hertz
Levy Court At-Large
  • Democratic candidate: Terry L. Pepper*
  • Republican candidate: Jason Bonner
  • Democratic candidate: Brian E. Lewis*
  • Republican candidate: Norman R. Barlow
  • Nonpartisan candidate: Aarika Nelson
Recorder of Deeds

Sussex County

County Council District 4
  • Republican candidate: Doug Hudson*
  • Democratic candidate: Nathan Mitchell
County Council District 5
  • Republican candidate: Robert T. Lee*
  • Nonpartisan candidate: James Brittingham
Register of Wills
  • Republican candidates: Greg Fuller, Ellen Magee*, Candice Green Wilkinson
Recorder of Deeds
  • Republican candidates: Alexandra Reed Baker, Scott Dailey*

* Indicates the candidate is the incumbent

This report will be updated following the Sept. 13 primary election. 


Delaware schools need 500 teachers. Here’s where

From: Townsquare Live!

As the academic year gears up, Delaware schools still have more than 500 teacher vacancies to fill.

“We think about it as a perfect storm of conditions,” said Stephanie Ingram, president of the Delaware State Education Association.

Schools expected to have a higher than normal number of retirements, partly because of the stresses of dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic.

This year, that’s been coupled with an increase in student enrollment of more than 7%, Ingram said.

At the same time, “We have fewer graduates from the educator programs than our surrounding states, which leads to the teacher shortage in our schools,” she said.

Some education officials believe that schools themselves — and even the media — are to blame for the teacher shortage.

Bradley Layfield, principal of Sussex Central High School, said school leadership plays a role in attracting and retaining teachers.

“As an administrator, I think that we bear some of this in how we treat our teachers and how we support our teachers to then support students,” he said.

Kendall Massett, executive director of Delaware Charter Schools Network, said more attention should be paid to the teachers who do decide to work in the First State.

“While of course we need to get more teachers in and we want to bring more teachers to Delaware … I really wish we weren’t talking about that,” she said. “We need to talk about the fact that we have so many amazing educators that are staying. We are not talking about them.”

Massett said the perception that there is a teacher shortage is caused, in large part, by how the media talks about it.

“When you focus on the bad and when you focus on the challenges, that’s what you’re going to get,” she said.

The situation frustrates districts in many ways.

“As a superintendent, we’re promising and guaranteeing that children are getting a quality education, and you’re doing everything you can to provide the best quality education you can,” said Jeff Menzer, superintendent of Colonial School District.

“The more you string out these vacancies and the longer these vacancies appear and occur, the harder it is to say that to the public,” he said. “That’s really going to be the struggle over the next several years.”

Delaware isn’t alone in grappling with a teacher shortage. States across the country are experiencing the same thing.

The teacher shortage has been building for a decade, Menzer said.

“There’s really not a lot of teachers that are coming out of school with those certification areas or that are out there working right now in those fields,” he said.

A list of Delaware’s vacancies shows that teachers are needed for every grade level, particularly in math, science, special education and world languages.

Charter schools aren’t experiencing as many vacancies as district schools, Massett said, in part because charters have more flexibility and fewer layers of bureaucracy than traditional public schools.

For example, she said, some charters have a co-teaching model where two teachers are present in the classroom, which allows charters to make a flex schedule and have some of the co-teachers cover other classes.

Districts are coping with the shortages in different ways, Menzer said.

A shortage doesn’t necessarily have to result in teachers taking on additional students, he said.

The state has in recent years increased the number of grow-your-own teacher residency programs and alternative routes to certification to help prospective teachers get experience at a young age or obtain their certifications in a nontraditional way.

The state has also established a 15-member Education Compensation Committee to look at how teachers are paid, partly because surrounding states are significantly increasing teacher pay, and Delaware doesn’t want its teachers poached.

In 2020, Delaware teachers earned a mean salary of $64,853, which ranked 20th in the nation.

The average starting salary for a Delaware teacher with a bachelor’s degree is $43,092. In Pennsylvania, that number is $44,674, in Maryland it’s $47,961 and in New Jersey, it’s $44,258.

The compensation committee and the teacher academy pathways programs are an important step toward solving the problem, Layfield said.

But “there are many things we can do and it’s not all about pay,” he said. “It’s about making teachers feel supported.”

Layfield said many teachers have told him they choose where to work based on the level of administrative support.

Menzer said a major challenge for superintendents is finding creative ways to meet the demand without burdening teachers with more students.

Some districts with vacancies distribute students to different teachers while they wait to fill positions, but Menzer said Colonial didn’t want to do that.

“You leave those classes in the schedule, and as a superintendent, you find creative ways to fill the positions and get students in front of qualified educators in a qualified educational program,” Menzer said, “and the class size won’t change a bit.”

The majority of Colonial’s vacancies are at William Penn High School.

However, Colonial’s “bench” is all dried up, Menzer said. It doesn’t have the normal pool of candidates waiting months or years for a spot to open up to get into the district.

Layfield and Menzer said more teachers are earning their certifications in nontraditional ways in recent years.

“We’ve gotten some very good teachers in the last couple of years that have come to us from the private business world that can bring that real world experience,” Layfield said.

“Now we need people in those programs,” Menzer said.

Massett said charters are able to offer a variety of teacher residency programs and also can be flexible with employees’ availability.

“Sometimes you have somebody that doesn’t want to work full time,” she said. “Schools can flex the schedule to allow that person to be part-time and they fill in the gaps in other ways.”

DSEA’s Ingram said there are lower retention rates for educators in urban schools, “which is a huge contributing factor to some of the shortages we’re seeing.”

The real impact of the unfilled positions will be felt by other teachers, she said.

“If we had the adequate staff then we can have smaller class sizes which we know is a definite leading factor in the success of our students,” she said. “We also know that it’s very difficult for an individual teacher who has a larger class to make sure that they’re providing the individual attention each student needs.”

Having additional students in every class means a teacher will need to spend more time grading papers and tests, coming up with lesson plan materials, spending individual time with students who need academic or emotional help, and other daily responsibilities.

“It is a trickle-down effect into every aspect of the school system,” Ingram said. “When you have these vacancies, everyone has to do more, which puts more on their plate, which overloads a system that’s already stressed out.”

In addition to a teacher shortage, many schools still need a deeper pool of substitute teachers.

Red Clay, for example, said it needs an additional 18, the most of any district.

Many people might be qualified to substitute and just don’t know it, Menzer said.

Menzer suggested that concerned citizens approach their local district and see if they have, or can earn, the certifications to teach.

All open positions in Delaware schools can be found through a portal published on the state’s website, which is updated daily.

Here is a roundup of vacancies in Delaware school districts and charter schools. Each district classifies their needs differently. Some filter the openings by grade level, some do it by subject, and some do a combination of the two.

District Schools

Appoquinimink, 62 openings 

Appo’s vacancies include two math teachers, an English teacher, two social studies teachers, three science teachers, four psychologists, a world language teacher, and seven special education workers.

Brandywine, 25 openings 

Brandywine’s openings include six student supporters, two elementary school teachers, a middle and high school teacher, four subs, and two paraeducators.

Caesar Rodney, 63 openings 

Caesar Rodney needs 14 elementary school teachers, seven middle school teachers, five student support workers, 23 athletic coaches, and three paraprofessionals.

Cape Henlopen, 58 openings 

Cape Henlopen’s vacancies include an elementary school teacher, two paraeducators, nine substitute teachers, and three special support workers.

Capital, 131 openings

Capital’s openings include 20 elementary school teachers, 21 middle school teachers, 23 high school teachers, 27 student support workers, and 20 paraeducators.

Christina, 120 openings

Christina’s vacancies include 18 elementary school teachers, 15 middle school teachers, 23 high school teachers, 27 student support workers, seven school nutrition workers, and six paraeducators.

Colonial, 38 openings

Colonial needs three elementary school teachers, five middle school teachers, nine high school teachers, seven paraprofessionals, and four student service workers.

Delmar, 28 openings

Delmar’s vacancies include seven middle school teachers, 10 high school teachers, seven substitute teachers, and two school nutrition workers.

Indian River, 37 openings

Indian River’s openings include one elementary school teacher, two middle school teachers, two high school teachers, four paraeducators, nine special support workers, and five substitutes.

Lake Forest, 38 openings

Lake forest needs six early childhood workers, three middle school teachers, eight high school teachers, five student support workers, and a substitute teacher.

Laurel, 72 openings

Laurel needs four elementary school teachers, seven middle school teachers, eight high school teachers, 11 student support workers, and six substitutes.

Milford, 19 openings

Milford’s vacancies include four elementary school teachers, three high school teachers, three subs, and five student support workers.

New Castle VoTech, 12 openings

New Castle VoTech needs a sub, a school nutrition workers, three paraeducators, six high school teachers, and a custodian.

POLYTECH, 7 openings

POLYTECH needs a high school teacher, a substitute teacher, a child nutrition workers, an administrative supervisor, an athletic trainer, a custodian, and a tech worker.

Red Clay, 84 openings

Red Clay needs 11 elementary school teachers, 15 middle school teachers, 10 high school teachers, 11 student support workers, 18 subs, and a bus driver.

Seaford, 36 openings

Seaford’s vacancies include three elementary school teachers, three middle school teachers, nine high school teachers, four paraeducators, six subs, and a school constable.

Smyrna, 15 openings

Smyrna needs two elementary school teachers, four high school teachers, four subs, a school nutrition worker, a secretary, and three custodians

Sussex Tech, 7 openings

Sussex Tech needs a custodian, a tech worker, three substitute teachers, a student support worker, and a high school teacher.

Woodbridge, 30 openings

Woodbridge’s openings include two elementary school teachers, four middle school teachers, eight high school teachers, three paraeducators, three school nutrition workers, and a substitute teacher.

Charter Schools

Academia Antonia Alonso, 11 openings 

Academia Antonia Alonso’s vacancies include two elementary school teachers, two middle school teachers, two school nutrition workers, a custodian, and a bus driver.

Academy of Dover, 4 openings

Academy of Dover Charter School needs a paraprofessional, a middle school teacher, an elementary school teacher, and a cafeteria worker.

Campus Community, 9 openings

Campus Community needs two elementary school teachers, two middle school teachers, a sub, three paraeducators, and a custodian.

Charter School of New Castle, 12 openings

Charter School of New Castle needs three elementary school teachers, seven middle school teachers, a sub, and a student support worker.

Charter School of Wilmington, 8 openings

Charter School of Wilmington needs three high school teachers, a substitute, a secretary, a girls volleyball coach, and two administrative workers.

Delaware Military Academy, 3 openings

Delaware Military Academy needs a boys lacrosse coach, an ROTC instructor, and a science substitute teacher.

Early College High School at Delaware State University, 1 opening

Early College High School at Delaware State University needs a high school math teacher.

EastSide Charter, 13 openings

East Side Charter is fully staffed but is looking to deepen their workforce by hiring five elementary school teachers and eight middle school teachers.

First State Military Academy, 2 openings

First State Military Academy needs a boys soccer coach and a math teacher.

First State Montessori Academy, 1 opening

First State Montessori Academy needs an elementary school teacher

Freire Charter School Wilmington, 2 openings

Freire Charter School Wilmington needs a high school Spanish and high school special education

Gateway Lab School, 2 openings

Gateway Lab School needs a paraprofessional and a substitute teacher.

Great Oaks, 9 openings

Great Oaks needs four high school teachers, two middle school teachers, a paraeducator, a student support worker, and an administrative worker.

Kuumba Academy, 11 openings

Kuumba Academy needs six elementary school teachers, four middle school teachers, and a student support worker.

Las Americas Aspira Academy, 3 openings

Las Americas Aspira Academy needs two special education paraprofessionals and a high school nurse.

MOT Charter, 11 openings

MOT Charter needs one middle school teacher, two high school teachers, four subs, a school nutrition worker, and three athletic coaches.

Newark Charter, 4 openings

Newark Charter needs three long-term subs and a school psychologist.

Odyssey Charter, 17 openings

Odyssey’s vacancies include an elementary school teacher, two high school teachers, three subs, three school nutrition workers, and a custodian.

Positive Outcomes Charter, 0 openings

Providence Creek Academy, 15 openings

Providence Creek Academy’s openings include two elementary school teachers, a middle school teacher, and two subs.

Sussex Academy, 7 openings

Sussex Academy needs a high school teacher, two subs, and four athletic coaches.

Sussex Montessori, 7 openings

Sussex Montessori needs four elementary school teachers, a paraeducator, a student support worker, and a reading specialist.

Thomas A. Edison Charter, 9 openings

Thomas A. Edison Charter needs six elementary school teachers, two middle school teachers, and a student support worker.

Why Wilmington’s Climate Change Plan is Bad for the City – Part I

From: Kathleen Rutherford, Executive Director, A Better Delaware

WILMINGTON, Del.-Recently, the City of Wilmington and the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) announced the release of a report on how Wilmington will prepare for tomorrow’s climate risks.  This follows several years after DNREC issued a similar report for the State.

The report focuses on how Wilmington will experience resilient economic growth through the development of innovative green solutions, update the City’s transportation system to be more environmentally friendly, and protect the City’s infrastructure and connect residents to resources that will protect them from climate change.  This plan is bad for the City of Wilmington owing to a number of reasons.

First, Wilmington has many other issues that are more pressing than climate change.  When adjusted for technological developments, we have experienced no significant increase in the events that kill the most people and adversely affect our lives—heat waves, cold spells, floods, droughts, hurricanes, and tornadoes, for example.  Changes in land use and a rising population, rather than increases in greenhouse gases, are most responsible for the occurrence of heat waves, floods, and droughts in Delaware.

The biggest climate-related scare posed by this report is sea level rise.  While sea level is indeed rising, it is rising for two primary reasons, neither of which are related to greenhouse gases.  Globally, sea level has been rising at a relatively constant rate of about 7 inches per century, with no observed increase due to carbon dioxide.

Indeed, we are still emerging from the last Ice Age and sea levels will continue to rise until virtually all of the polar ice caps are melted—or until we descend into another Ice Age.  But Delaware lies at the margin of the Laurentide Ice Sheet, which reached its maximum extent 21,000 years ago.  Isostacy caused the Earth’s crust to depress beneath the ice and to rise at the perimeter of the ice sheet during the glacial period.  Now that we are in an interglacial period, the station at Reedy Point is descending at a rate faster than anywhere on the East Coast.  Thus, rising sea levels in Delaware are due to melting ice from the demise of the last Ice Age and from isostacy due to the loss of the ice sheet—not from increasing greenhouse gases.

Moreover, Delaware is down more than 50% in per capita carbon dioxide emission over the last half century and is the fourth lowest state in carbon dioxide emissions overall.  Thomas Wigley, an alarmist scientist from the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, argued that if every nation on the planet followed the Kyoto Protocol, the global change in temperature would be only 0.13°F by 2050.  This would come at enormous cost but would be undetectable.  Thus, the impact of Delaware reducing its carbon footprint further would be all cost and no benefit.

But the “green remedy” to climate change in Delaware is potentially more disastrous than the supposed effects of climate change.  The proposal will make energy more expensive (so people will use less of it) and develops technology such as wind- and solar-energy programs and electric vehicles, all of which are still experimental.  Someone has to pay for this expensive technology because this so-called “renewable” energy either causes utility bills to rise drastically, or, with government subsidies, taxes rise drastically.  Businesses will suffer harm because the added cost of energy is a business expense that would either be (1) passed on to the consumer or (2) alleviated by moving to another state or country (if they can) which will cost Delaware jobs.

It is always suggested that the ‘green revolution’ will create jobs; in fact, it never does.  Bloom Energy was sold to the State legislature because it would create 900 jobs (a pittance, compared to the jobs lost by the exit of Chrysler and GM) but it has never created as many as 400, despite the cost of more than $325M to Delmarva Power ratepayers and a total take of almost $500M by Bloom Energy.  Consider Spain, where the concept of green energy has failed miserably.  After spending more than 100B€ in subsidies, their power is inconsistent at best and must be matched by energy from fossil fuel sources to keep from experiencing blackouts.  The price for energy has spiraled out of control as it has more than doubled in just the last year.

Furthermore, the argument that wind and solar can meet our energy needs would “require an outsized amount of land or offshore areas for wind and solar farms.”  Efforts in Delaware are pushing the legislature to approve wind turbines off the coast of Bethany Beach (which require a significant right-of-way to connect the energy to the grid) and an extensive buyout of farmland in Kent and Sussex counties is underway to install large arrays of solar panels.  We are trading food for energy and consequently, the cost of both will skyrocket.  Delaware is poised to become the next Spain, with respect to energy.

One of the most devastating “solutions” proposed by proponents is to have the State legislature limit utility increases.  Price controls always result in scarcity because if we force a business to charge less than the cost of manufacturing plus a reasonable profit, they won’t produce.  Green energy is an expensive proposition and can be facilitated only by large subsidies. But what is forgotten in this discussion is that wind and solar are not dispatchable and require backup energy (usually from fossil fuels) when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining.  Delaware presently pays $100M per year to keep the coal-fired power plant in Millsboro available to cover for the intermittency of wind and solar energy.  In 2021, the plant was dispatched for only 20 hours.  The additional expense (over that returned by selling the electricity) is paid by Delaware’s energy ratepayers.

The reliance on these intermittent energy sources to run our grid makes energy more expensive, less dependable, and will hurt beach towns, small coastal municipalities, restaurants, hotels and all other businesses and citizens who need to use energy.  So, if the plans set forth by Resilient Wilmington and the State of Delaware to address the impacts of sea level rise by focusing on limiting carbon dioxide emissions is scientifically useless and bad environmental policy, what should our coastal communities be doing?  Stay tuned for Part II to find out!

Youngkin admin seeks to withdraw Virginia from RGGI without new legislation


NORFOLK, Va. — Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s administration is aiming to withdraw the state from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) by the end of 2023 without legislative action from state lawmakers.

Travis Voyles, the acting Virginia secretary of natural and historic resources, presented the withdrawal plans to the Virginia Air Pollution Control Board during its Wednesday meeting.

If it goes through, the state would no longer be part of the auction-based carbon emissions reduction program alongside 10 other East Coast states.

Voyles’ presentation lines up with Youngkin’s ninth executive order, which ordered administration officials to propose a regulation that would repeal the state’s participation in RGGI.

“RGGI is a bad deal for Virginia,” Voyles told board members. “Whether you agree with the framework and principles of the cap and trade system, the way RGGI has been implemented in Virginia does not work as an effective means for greenhouse gas reductions.”

Voyles opened his presentation by arguing that RGGI passes costs onto Virginia consumers “as a tax” without incentivizing any change in behavior from electricity providers because of the way it was set up.

He also claimed that Virginia’s participation allows northeastern states to dictate the state’s energy policies, as opposed to Virginians and elected officials.

Voyles concluded his opening argument by saying Virginians don’t need “a regressive energy tax through RGGI” to fund programs that address climate resiliency and energy efficiency.

After explaining where the administration stands on RGGI, Voyles said officials will soon introduce a notice of intended regulatory action repealing the state’s participation.

Under Virginia law, those notices should describe the planned regulation and allow at least 30 days for the public to comment.

Voyles said the regulation would allow the state to leave RGGI by the end of 2023, coinciding with the end of the program’s three-year compliance period and contract with the organization that manages the program. He added that waiting to withdraw would provide regulatory certainty.

Despite these steps, it’s legally ambiguous if Virginia can leave the program without new legislation because of provisions in the Clean Energy and Community Flood Preparedness Act.

The 2020 law directed the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to incorporate regulations that created the carbon dioxide cap and trade program and authorized the department director to create and manage a program “consistent with the RGGI program.”

Following Voyles’ presentation, the Southern Environmental Law Center said the action taken by the Youngkin administration wasn’t legal, and the program is beneficial for Virginians.

“RGGI has already proven it reduces pollution at the same time that it brings in desperately needed resources,” SELC Senior Attorney Nate Benforado said in a statement. “But instead of supporting this popular program to reduce carbon pollution, the Youngkin administration has consistently sought to take unlawful action to end Virginia’s participation in RGGI — despite the fact that neither the governor nor regulators have the authority to do so.”

Benforado attended the presentation and spoke to the board following Voyles’ presentation, saying it doesn’t matter what he, board members or Youngkin think about RGGI.

“The General Assembly decided this policy for us in 2020,” Benforado told board members. “They wrote a law that mandates we participate in RGGI.”

RGGI is comprised of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia. These states have a regional cap that limits carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, a limit that will get stricter over time.

Within the program, regulated power plants have to acquire carbon dioxide emission allowances for every short ton they emit, which are distributed at quarterly actions.

The idea behind a cap-and-trade program, such as RGGI, is to encourage power plants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change and invest in clean energy production.

Voyles’ presentation to the Virginia Air Pollution Control Board came the same day that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released the 2021 State of the Climate report, which found greenhouse gas concentrations, global sea levels and ocean heat levels all hit record highs last year.