What’s New

BEYOND THE BUDGET: DELAWARE EDUCATION NEEDS RESULTS, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND MORE CHOICES

By: Kathleen Rutherford, Guest Contributor

Each year, Delaware makes significant investments in educating our children. The state budget grows, new programs are announced, and policymakers reaffirm their commitment to improving schools.

Those investments matter.

Teachers need support. Schools need resources. Students need opportunities.

But families deserve an answer to a basic question:

Are those investments producing the results Delaware students need?

The data suggests there is still significant work to do. In 2025, only 41% of Delaware students in grades 3-8 were proficient in English language arts, and just 34% were proficient in math. Among high school juniors, 47% met proficiency in SAT reading, while only 18% were proficient in math. Even with modest year-over-year gains, fewer than half of Delaware students are meeting grade-level expectations in reading, and barely one-third are proficient in mathematics.

Literacy Must Be the Starting Point

One of the most encouraging developments in Delaware education policy is the renewed focus on early literacy.

The Delaware Department of Education’s Early Literacy Plan focuses on evidence-based reading instruction, stronger teacher preparation, coaching, and measurable goals for improving student outcomes. The state has set a goal of increasing third grade reading proficiency while ensuring that educators receive training aligned with the Science of Reading. (State of Delaware News⁠)

Delaware has also committed more than $8 million toward strengthening literacy instruction statewide, including investments supporting districts and charter schools as they implement evidence-based reading practices in classrooms. Delaware accelerates statewide early literacy strategy with more than $8M to strengthen classroom reading instruction⁠

These are positive steps.

But funding alone will not solve the literacy challenge.

Delaware must continue focusing on measurable outcomes: identifying struggling readers early, providing effective interventions quickly, supporting teachers with proven instructional methods, and tracking whether those efforts are actually improving student performance.

The state has also moved toward stronger literacy accountability by requiring better reporting on students identified with potential reading deficiencies and the interventions being provided. Early identification matters because students who struggle with reading cannot afford to wait years for help.

Delaware Can Learn From Other States

Delaware is not the only state that has faced persistent academic challenges. Other states have taken different approaches that provide lessons worth considering.

Mississippi is one example. After years of struggling academically, Mississippi gained national attention for improving early literacy through a combination of evidence-based reading instruction, teacher training, early screening, and intervention strategies. Recent reporting shows that the state continues working to extend literacy gains beyond elementary grades by expanding support for older students. Mississippi focuses on boosting middle school students’ reading scores⁠ (Mississippi Today⁠)

The lesson for Delaware is not that one state’s system should simply be copied. It is that improvement requires focus. Students need to be identified when they struggle, teachers need the right tools, and schools need reliable ways to measure progress.

Tennessee provides another example of targeted literacy efforts. The state has continued evaluating literacy programs and strengthening early reading strategies through partnerships focused on improving instruction and measuring which approaches are most effective. Tennessee literacy evaluation partnership⁠

Florida provides another policy lesson through its expansion of educational options for families. Florida has continued to broaden scholarship programs and other education choices designed to give parents greater flexibility in selecting the learning environment that best meets their child’s needs. Florida education choice expansion coverage⁠

Delaware should not simply copy another state’s policies. But we should be willing to learn from approaches that have produced results elsewhere.

Accountability and Transparency Matter

Parents deserve clear information about how schools are performing.

Taxpayers deserve to know whether education dollars are being used effectively.

Teachers deserve a system that identifies successful strategies and provides support where improvement is needed.

Transparency is not about criticizing schools. It is about building trust and ensuring that families and communities have the information necessary to make informed decisions.

Delaware has continued efforts to improve access to education budget information, school performance data, and accountability reporting. Those efforts should continue.

Parents should not have to search through complicated reports or wait years to understand whether their child’s school is meeting expectations.

Families Need Meaningful Educational Options

Accountability and transparency are essential, but Delaware must also recognize another important part of the education conversation: opportunity.

Delaware’s School Choice program already allows families to apply for placement in public schools outside their assigned attendance area, including traditional public schools, charter schools, and vocational-technical programs.

That flexibility has helped many families.

But for students attending schools that have struggled year after year, we must ask whether families have enough meaningful options.

Parents should not have to wait indefinitely while their child falls further behind.

The discussion about educational choice should not be framed as public schools versus alternatives. Many Delaware public schools are doing excellent work because of dedicated teachers, strong leadership, and engaged communities. Those schools should be supported and celebrated.

At the same time, every child deserves access to a school where they can succeed.

That means continuing to strengthen traditional public schools while also considering whether charter schools, career and technical education programs, tutoring opportunities, and other educational options can provide better opportunities for students who are not thriving in their current placement.

The standard should be simple:

Does the policy improve educational opportunities and outcomes for children?

If the answer is yes, Delaware should be willing to consider it.

Moving From Investment to Impact

Delaware does not lack commitment to education.

What we need is a stronger commitment to results.

That means:

• Setting clear academic goals.
• Expanding evidence-based literacy instruction.
• Identifying struggling students earlier.
• Providing targeted tutoring and intervention.
• Giving parents meaningful information and options.
• Learning from successful approaches in other states.

Our educators work hard. Our families care deeply. Our students are capable of achieving far more.

More funding can be part of the answer—but it cannot be the only answer.

Delaware’s children deserve an education system that measures success not by what we promise, but by what students are able to achieve.

Kathleen Rutherford is a government relations and advocacy professional with experience in lobbying, public policy, and strategic communications in Delaware and Washington, D.C. Rutherford Consulting, Inc. provides policy analysis, advocacy strategy, and communications support that connects legislative decisions to real-world economic and community impacts.

Delaware Gives up its Electric Grid Authority*

By John Nichols, Guest Contributor**

Every Delawarean who flips a light switch depends on interconnection rules — the procedures that govern how solar panels, batteries and other devices connect to the electric grid. Get those rules right, and the grid stays safe, and costs stay reasonable. Get them wrong, and Delaware families and businesses can pay the price, sometimes for years.

On May 21, Gov. Matt Meyer signed House Bill 269 into law. The bill was presented as a modernization of Delaware’s interconnection rules. Its actual effect reaches much further: It makes the Interstate Renewable Energy Council — a private advocacy organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. — the default standard setter for Delaware’s interconnection rules, in place of the Delaware Public Service Commission, a state agency accountable to Delawareans.

This new law amends Title 26 of the Delaware Code to require that every Delaware electric supplier adopt the Interstate Renewable Energy Council’s Model Interconnection Procedures within 12 months of each new edition published by the council. The council updates those procedures on its own schedule, for its own purposes, with no obligation to weigh Delaware’s specific grid conditions, reliability requirements or ratepayer costs. Under this law, electric suppliers in Delaware must align with each newly published edition within 12 months.

Prior to being signed into law, the bill was amended and passed by voice vote, with no individual legislator on record. The original bill required that interconnection rules be “aligned with” the council’s procedures — language that, while mandatory, left some room for regulatory adaptation. The amendment replaced that flexibility with an absolute mandate: “Any deviation from the Procedures must be affirmatively approved by the utility’s regulatory body in a formal proceeding.” The law substantially shifts the default standard-setting role from the Delaware Public Service Commission to the Interstate Renewable Energy Council.

No other state has chosen to cede its authority

To our knowledge, no other state has enacted a law requiring its electric suppliers to automatically adopt future editions of a private organization’s model interconnection procedures as the binding legal standards. Across the nation, states have modernized their interconnection rules by directing their own commissions to conduct proceedings — open to the public, subject to evidentiary standards, with interveners representing ratepayer interests — to evaluate the council’s model procedures and incorporate what makes sense for their specific circumstances. New Mexico and New Jersey recently did exactly that. They used the council’s model as a reference. They did not hand the council a pen and ask it to write their laws.

Delaware appears to be the first.

House Bill 269 applies not only to Delmarva Power, which the commission regulates, but to all of the Delaware Municipal Electric Corp.’s nine member utilities, governed by their individual municipal councils, and to the Delaware Electric Cooperative, whose members voted under authority granted by the General Assembly to remove themselves from commission oversight entirely — authority established in Title 26. If those providers conclude that the council’s latest procedures are wrong for their customers and seek approval to deviate, the law provides no clear forum in which to do so. Who, exactly, has the authority to approve such a deviation for the Delaware Electric Cooperative?

An advocacy organization, not a regulatory body

The Interstate Renewable Energy Council describes its own mission as building “the foundation for rapid adoption of clean energy.” Its accreditation covers certifying the quality of solar installation training programs and instructors. That accreditation has nothing to do with writing interconnection standards for public utilities. The council’s own model interconnection procedures describe themselves as a “complimentary resource” intended to “guide and inform state utility regulators” — not to govern them. Delaware law now elevates those procedures from guidance into a regulatory framework utility must follow. The procedures themselves are not engineering standards. They govern policy and process, including application review timelines, approval tracks for different system sizes and dispute resolution steps. The actual engineering standard governing how equipment must behave on the grid is IEEE Standard 1547-2018, which was developed through an accredited consensus process involving engineers, utilities, manufacturers and regulators. The council’s procedures reference that standard, then add policy requirements on top of it. Delaware law now makes those policy choices mandatory.

Who controls Delaware’s electric grid?

Supporters argue that the measure will accelerate renewable energy deployment and reduce interconnection delays. The question, however, is whether Delaware should permanently delegate evolving grid policy standards to a private advocacy organization, rather than retain direct state oversight.

By enacting this law, the General Assembly has handed ongoing standard-setting authority over Delaware’s electric grid to a private organization with no connection to Delaware government, no obligation to weigh Delaware ratepayers’ interests and no accountability to the people of Delaware. Whether that is something the state of Delaware may lawfully do is a question the General Assembly did not answer.

The question the General Assembly did not answer is now Delaware law.

John Nichols is a Fellow at the Center for Energy & Environmental Policy at the Caesar Rodney Institute.

* Originally published Monday, June 29, 2026, in the Daily State News.

**Reprinted with the author’s permission.

The Ongoing Promise of Freedom

By: Jane Brady, Chair, A Better Delaware

I attended a funeral recently, well, a celebration of life, really, and it struck a chord in me with regard to what is going on in our country today.

I have been to many celebrations of life. People express the goodness and positive impact the deceased had on their lives, the challenges overcome, the victories of perseverance, love and spirit.

Of course, however, every person who has lived has had shortcomings, disappointments, failures. But, when we celebrate that person, we celebrate the positive, the good, and we understand that while we are all flawed, we are all valued.

250 years ago, a great experiment began. An experiment that placed power in the hands of the governed – to make decisions about what they valued and prioritized, and who would lead them, even how  much they would pay in taxes. They may choose differently than you would, even differently than the people in power would, but the authority to make those decisions lay within the individual citizens.

Today, in our country, rather than celebrate the tremendous gift that power gives us, there are those who focus instead on rejecting that system, and embracing a government that is overpowering, all-inclusive.

It is, perhaps, easier for citizens to just be on board for the ride, because governing ourselves takes time, effort, responsibility and accountability. Our republic expects our citizens to be informed, engaged and to act in their own self-interest. That could be asking a lot.

So, these new leaders say, trust us! We will take care of you! we will fight your fight! We will secure your rights! But who are “they”? They are the government. They will do as they choose. But, once you give them that power, you lose the authority over your own destiny.

There is a reason, in countries which do not have a democracy, a republic, that there is a collection of power in a small group, or one individual. They have the power to decide. Some inherited that power. Others took it by force. The end result has been that “they” – those in control – can do as they please, while the citizens do as they say.

In this country, we used force to take the power away from that small group, that individual – the King – and gave it to the people. We the People, have made this country the success it is today. On this, our 250th Anniversary, let us celebrate that greatness and aspire to more.

Jane Brady serves as Chair of A Better Delaware. She previously served as Attorney General of Delaware and as a Judge of the Delaware Superior Court.

Delaware Education Reform Must Focus on Learning, Not Just Spending or Consolidation

By: Jane Brady, Chair, A Better Delaware

There are two major events likely to occur in the next year related to education in Delaware. One is change in the way we fund our schools. The other is the prospect of consolidation of the four major school districts in (most of) New Castle County. Both are of concern.

First, the funding. We already spend about 25% of our state budget on education – one of the highest spenders in the country. We average over $20,000 per student, according to the Department of Education. But that number is much lower in charter schools, which are also public schools, and is much higher in some of the lowest performing schools in the state.

Concerns have been raised about disparities in funding, focused on the more prosperous areas of the state, which are claimed to have more money, so better school funding.  In fact, many resources are funneled to the poor performing schools in order to add special services and resources. One study, by the Caesar Rodney Institute found that in one of the poorest performing schools in the state, in the City of Wilmington, the amount spent per pupil per year was in excess of $30,000. Yet, students were performing at the lowest levels – less than 10% proficiency in some years. (That means out of 100 students, 10 read at grade level.)

The problem is not money. We have said it before, consistently, and will continue to do so. Delaware is in the top ten in spending in the nation, bottom 4 or 5 in performance. If what you seek from our education system is learning, achievement and accomplishment, we need to change what we are doing, not how much we are spending.

So, the idea of consolidation was proposed. It is a change in what we are doing – moving from four school districts to one school district of over 43,000 students. Questions abound. Will parents get more say in where their children can attend school? Will transportation be provided to the children who choose a school further from their home?  Will there be cuts in the bureaucracy and unnecessary administrative staff? Will we simply be moving pieces of the old system to new locations? Will we change anything about the curriculum? Will we add accountability?

What about the City of Wilmington? The vast majority of our state’s failing schools are located there. That is not a reflection on the capability of the students, but of the system that is failing them. The City’s children are not likely to fare better when they become a small piece of a larger bureaucracy, swallowed up by the numbers. The City of Wilmington should take back the education of their children. The state is failing them. The City can look to the remarkable comeback of New Orleans. Once at the bottom of all schools in the state, after Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans took a look at what might work. The latest Education Scorecard, which is compiled by researchers at Harvard, Stanford and Dartmouth, ranks Louisiana as the only state to exceed pre-pandemic performance in math and reading, and the researchers credit New Orleans’ efforts with the leap. New Orleans now is in the center of the pack and poised to keep rising, with “impressive” test scores, graduation rates and college enrollment. The City of New Orleans now is nearly “all-charter, all-choice” and has put parents in the driver’s seat when it comes to making decisions about their child’s education.

We do not need to change buildings or staff or even adopt a consolidation to improve our education system.  We need to change our delivery and accountability. Our current and former Governors failed us when they did not advocate adoption of the accountability that has moved Mississippi students ahead of the nation in improvement in student performance. Adding money to a system that is not delivering a product – learning – is wasting money.

There are good and dedicated people in our schools, teachers and administrators alike. But the leadership has not created or supported the energy, direction and inspiration those dedicated professionals can provide to generate curiosity and interest in our students, and, thus, learning. Bigger may not be better. What is clear is that the focus on where kids are learning, instead of that they are learning, is misguided and should not take priority in effort, time or funding over changing the lives of the students who depend on our schools to give them the tools they need to prosper in live and the workforce.

Jane Brady serves as Chair of A Better Delaware. She previously served as Attorney General of Delaware and as a Judge of the Delaware Superior Court.

SB 322: Delaware Should Not Put School Property Taxes on Autopilot

By: Charlie Copeland, Guest Contributor

Delaware’s school-finance system has real problems, but automatic annual tax increases are NOT the solution. SB 322 moves Delaware toward a system in which school districts impose recurring annual property-tax increases without voters’ approval while educational outcomes remain among the weakest in the nation.

How SB 322 Expands School Taxing Authority 

SB 322 does two important things. First, it replaces a 10% post-reassessment tax increase cap with a formula tied to the district’s prior-year operating revenues and the average growth rate of taxable property since the previous reassessment.

Second, and more troubling, SB 322 would allow school districts to raise school property taxes by up to 2% annually without a referendum, provided the district’s “operational reserve balance” does not exceed 10% of annual revenue.

A 2% annual increase may sound modest, but compounded over 10 years, it amounts to a 21.9% increase. Using the New Castle County tax rate formula, for a $378,000 home in the Christina School District paying $3,023 in school property taxes, a recurring 2% annual increase would become approximately $3,685 after 10 years – costing the homeowner about $662 – before considering any other tax increases, reassessments, or general household inflation.

Minimal Statewide Enrollment Growth Weakens the Case for SB 322

Delaware’s annual student count (also called the unit count) includes public school students enrolled and in attendance during the last 10 school days of September and is the basis for Delaware school funding. According to the Delaware Department of Education, from 2015 to 2025, total annual enrollment in Delaware district schools grew by only 0.38%, an average increase of only 34 students per year statewide. Given such minimal statewide enrollment growth, the case for a new statewide mechanism allowing recurring tax increases deserves careful scrutiny. At the same time, that statewide figure masks significant differences among districts, with some growing rapidly while others are shrinking.

It is true that some districts face enrollment pressure. Cape Henlopen and Appoquinimink, for example, have 10-year growth rates of 30.2% and 24.9%, respectively. However, other districts have declined sharply. Christina, Colonial, and Red Clay have lost 17.7%, 15.3%, and 10.9% of their enrollment, respectively.  Why do these districts need the authority for an automatic, annual tax increase of 2%, without taking the issue to a vote by referendum?

It is clear from this data that any case for higher taxes should be district-specific, tied to actual enrollment, student need, inflation, and demonstrated efficiency.

Why SB 322 May Encourage Districts to Spend More

SB 322 says districts cannot use the 2% authority if their “operational reserve balance” exceeds 10% of annual revenue. But that term is NOT defined in code. Does “annual revenue” mean total district revenue, local revenue, current-expense revenue, discretionary revenue, or all-funds revenue? Does “operational reserve” mean audited fund balance, projected cash balance, unencumbered local balance, or another Department of Education measure?

More importantly, penalizing reserve holdings incentivizes districts to reduce them to maintain their free taxing authority. In essence, SB 322 creates an incentive for districts to reduce reserves so they can increase spending. Instead, Delaware should create incentives to allocate existing spending more efficiently.

Delaware’s Educational Results Are Terrible

According to Delaware’s Fiscal Year 2026 budget, approximately one-third of Delaware’s spending goes to K-12 education (District and Charter Operations), yet Delaware’s educational results are among the worst in the nation. According to The Nation’s Report Card, 40% of Delaware eighth graders and 45% of Delaware fourth graders scored below Basic in reading on the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).  Similarly, a 2024 Urban Institute analysis of demographically adjusted student performance ranked Delaware 48th in the nation in eighth-grade math and reading.

If lawmakers believe referenda are too blunt or disruptive, they should replace them with a stronger compact between districts and taxpayers. Funding growth should be tied to publicly available, measurable outcomes such as those shown in the table below.

Furthermore, Delaware should require publicly available efficiency audits conducted by the independently elected State Auditor before districts exercise automatic taxing authority. Those audits should review central-office staffing, procurement, transportation, facilities, energy costs, vendor contracts, administrative overhead, and program duplication.

Taxpayers Deserve Accountability Before Automatic Tax Increases

As written, SB 322 removes voter oversight while rewarding fiscal mismanagement and providing additional taxing authority regardless of educational underperformance.

Property taxes are paid from household cash flow, not from assessed value. Seniors on fixed incomes, young families buying homes at today’s interest rates, working-class homeowners, small landlords, and small businesses all face rising costs from insurance, utilities, maintenance, food, health care, and borrowing. An automatic school-tax escalator may be administratively convenient, but it is indifferent to a taxpayer’s ability to pay, the needs of a specific district, or educational outcomes.

Tax increases should be earned through results and approved by voters—not granted automatically by statute.

Charlie Copeland is the Director of the Center for Economic & Fiscal Policy for the Cesar Rodney Institute.

Pennsylvania Showed the Way on Utility Greed. Will Delaware Follow? *

By: Jane Brady, Chair, A Better Delaware

Pennsylvania just gave Delaware a roadmap for confronting the greed of monopoly utilities. Whether Delaware’s leaders choose to follow it remains to be seen.

When Governor Josh Shapiro called out PECO’s rate request for what it was – a profitable utility reaching into the pockets of working families – he didn’t do it with a quiet regulatory filing or a carefully-worded press statement. He did it loudly, publicly, and by name. The result? A utility that had insisted its investment plans were fixed and essential suddenly discovered they possessed some flexibility.

Delaware should be paying attention. Not because our situation is identical to Pennsylvania’s, but because the underlying dynamic is precisely the same.

Delmarva Power is an Exelon subsidiary, the same multi-billion-dollar corporate parent as PECO. These are not struggling enterprises. Exelon is one of the most financially stable utility conglomerates in the country, and its Q1 2026 Earnings Report showed yet another increase in profits. It should be no surprise that, due to Exelon’s guaranteed returns baked into the regulatory framework, captive consumers have nowhere else to turn, and revenue streams are protected from virtually every market risk that ordinary Delaware businesses face every day. When a company like that comes to the Delaware Public Service Commission asking for more, the first question shouldn’t be how much is reasonable. The first question should be why the hike is necessary in the first place.

Here’s something that rarely makes it into the conversation about utility bills: The actual cost of energy has stayed relatively constant for years. What has exploded is the delivery charge. The fee that goes directly to the regulated utility company. The charge is not set by the market, but by regulators, and is guaranteed regardless of how energy prices fluctuate. For many Delaware customers, delivery now rivals or exceeds the energy cost itself. That’s not a market outcome. That’s a regulatory outcome, and it can be changed.

Delaware is a small state. That’s usually described as a limitation. In this case, it’s an advantage. Our legislature is more accessible. Our governor’s office is not some far-off institution. The Public Service Commission is not some untouchable bureaucracy that can’t be influenced by public pressure. What happens in Dover is clear to the people it affects. There is no reason why Delaware cannot move faster and more decisively than its larger neighbors on this issue.

That starts with elected officials being willing to say plainly what Governor Shapiro said in Pennsylvania. Utilities earning hundreds of millions in profit do not have an automatic right to collect even more from ratepayers, and the public interest requires oversight, not blind acceptance. Utility companies are highly sophisticated. They have teams of lawyers and consultants, and they know how to present a rate case in language that makes it sound convincing and unavoidable. The response to that shouldn’t be passivity, but political will.

Governor Matt Meyer and Delaware’s General Assembly should be using every available tool – legislative, regulatory, and rhetorical – to ensure that the era of routine rate increases is over. The Public Service Commission should be hearing loud and clear from elected officials that affordability is not a secondary issue to be balanced against utility revenue projections. It is the primary concern.

Lawmakers are starting to pay attention, with one state senator reacting: ‘I think it’s a little tone deaf to come with the rate increase, such as the one they did, with a 10.5% return on equity for Delawareans.’” Now it’s time to take concrete action. Reject the current rate hike request and implement a full freeze on further requests going forward.

The utilities will say they need the revenue to modernize the grid, to ensure reliability, to meet clean energy standards. Some of that is true, but none of it means we accept it no questions asked. Investments can be phased. Returns can be scrutinized. Shareholders can absorb more risk than Delaware ratepayers currently bear on their behalf.

Pennsylvania showed what’s possible when a governor decides that utility customers are worth fighting for. Delaware’s leaders just need the political will to engage.

Jane Brady serves as Chair of A Better Delaware. She previously served as Attorney General of Delaware and as a Judge of the Delaware Superior Court.

*Originally published as an op-ed in the Delaware State News on June 8, 2026.

Affordable Housing in Delaware: Rising Taxes, Rising Costs, and Growing Concerns

By: Kahleen Rutherford, Guest Contributor

Affordable housing is one of the most pressing challenges facing Delaware families. Across the state, residents are confronting a mix of financial pressures and policy questions that are making it harder to find and keep affordable homes.

The debate is being shaped by several connected concerns:

• higher rents and housing shortages
• rising property taxes and growing foreclosure risk
• increasing construction and infrastructure costs
• questions about who should control growth and zoning decisions

As lawmakers in Dover weigh possible solutions, many Delawareans are asking a basic question: will these proposals make housing more affordable, or push it even further out of reach?

Rising Property Taxes and Financial Strain

For many Delaware families, the most immediate concern is the growing burden of property taxes. After the state’s first statewide property tax reassessment in roughly 40 years, many residents saw their tax bills rise sharply, putting added pressure on seniors and families living on fixed incomes.

In late May, New Castle County approved a 17% property tax increase to close a nearly $42 million budget gap. Delaware recently ranked as having  the highest foreclosure rate in America, with filings up 18% year over year in April. Realtor.com analyst Hannah Jones said the reassessments pushed some Delaware homeowners “over the financial edge.”

Housing Supply and Construction Costs

Delaware’s housing shortage remains severe. State housing officials estimate that lower-income renters need nearly 20,000 additional affordable housing units. Yet many residents worry that some proposed policies could make new construction even more expensive and slow the creation of badly needed homes.

A recent report from the Delaware Business Times raised concerns about proposed Senate Bill 272, which could increase construction costs across the state. Supporters say the measure would protect workers. Critics argue that higher building costs often mean taxpayers pay more for public projects and fewer affordable homes get built.

Those concerns are especially significant because Delaware is already facing major infrastructure demands. One in four bridges in the state is rated deficient, and some school districts are projecting tax burdens that could rise by 8–10 percent. For families already stretched thin, these added costs are becoming harder to absorb.

Local Control and Zoning Authority

A major debate in the Delaware legislature centers on Senate Bill 23 and the question of who should guide development decisions. The issue is not whether Delaware needs more housing, most people agree that it does. The deeper disagreement is over who should decide where and how that growth happens.

Should lawmakers from one region be able to override local zoning decisions in counties facing different infrastructure needs, traffic conditions, and growth priorities? The debate has become especially sensitive in Sussex County, where rapid development has already intensified concerns about congestion, schools, and public services. Many residents believe local officials and communities should retain primary control over zoning and growth decisions.

As Delaware searches for workable housing solutions, the challenge will be finding the right balance between growth, affordability, taxpayer impact, and local control. Residents across the state are watching closely and asking whether current proposals will truly lower housing costs—or simply add new financial pressure to families already struggling to keep up.

Kathleen Rutherford is a government relations and advocacy professional with experience in lobbying, public policy, and strategic communications in Delaware and Washington, D.C. Rutherford Consulting, Inc. provides policy analysis, advocacy strategy, and communications support that connects legislative decisions to real-world economic and community impacts.

How Much Carbon Dioxide Will There Be in the Atmosphere at the End of This Century?

By: Dr. David R. Legates, Guest Contributor

No one knows for sure. Yet climate models depend on assumptions about future CO₂ concentrations and the pathways that get us there. Their temperature projections hinge on these inputs. For years, modelers relied on a set of standardized scenarios. In early May, the Seventh Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7) introduced a significant shift in how future climate projections are framed. This change will shape the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report and marks a welcome move toward greater realism.

Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), developed for the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report around 2014, provided standardized inputs focused on atmospheric concentrations and radiative forcing—the imbalance in Earth’s energy budget, measured in watts per square meter (W/m²) relative to pre-industrial levels by 2100. The main RCPs included:

• RCP2.6: very low emissions with strong mitigation, peaking and then declining.
• RCP4.5: intermediate reductions.
• RCP6.0: more modest reductions.
• RCP8.5: virtually no reductions, reaching about 8.5 W/m².

These were designed primarily for exploring physical climate responses across distinct forcing levels, not as precise socioeconomic forecasts. They were paired with emissions scenarios from Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs). RCP8.5 was intended as an extreme high-end case for exploratory purposes, but communication gaps led many researchers, media outlets, and policymakers to treat it as a central “business-as-usual” projection.

For CMIP6 and the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report, Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) expanded the framework. SSPs combined socioeconomic narratives—covering population, economic growth, technology, and policy—with specific radiative forcing targets.

Key examples included SSP1-2.6 (sustainability-focused), SSP2-4.6 (middle-of-the-road with modest mitigation), and SSP5-8.5 (high fossil-fuel growth with no strong policies). The trailing number again indicated the forcing level in W/m² by 2100.

These scenarios served multiple roles: driving Earth system models to simulate temperature, precipitation, extremes, and sea-level rise; assessing impacts on ecosystems, agriculture, and infrastructure; evaluating mitigation costs and policy options; and supporting risk management under uncertainty. Differences stemmed from assumptions about population and GDP growth, energy mixes (coal-heavy versus renewables and nuclear), technological progress, international cooperation, and model-specific factors like climate sensitivity and carbon-cycle feedbacks.

The extreme scenarios, particularly RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5, assumed a massive resurgence in coal use—up to fivefold increases—along with high energy demand and very slow decarbonization. Under SSP5-8.5, CO₂ concentrations were projected to exceed 936 parts per million by 2100, potentially driving warming as high as 11°F (about 6°C). These relied on Integrated Assessment Models with outdated assumptions, including “return-to-coal” hypotheses based on untested resource extraction models. Critics noted that these baselines were increasingly disconnected from reality.

By the mid-2010s, clear discrepancies emerged. Global coal use peaked around 2013 and then flattened. Costs for solar and wind fell far faster than anticipated. Emissions growth slowed dramatically from about 3% per year in the 2000s to near-flat levels post-2010. Real-world trajectories aligned far more closely with moderate scenarios like RCP4.5 or SSP2-4.5. Meta-analyses confirmed that IAMs had systematically overestimated future coal use.

As renewable energy economics improved, the extreme coal expansion assumed in high-end scenarios became highly implausible. Forcing by 2100 appeared far more likely to hover near 6 W/m² than 8.5.

Despite this, thousands of studies continued using the high-end scenarios to model impacts such as extreme heat, sea-level rise, and ecosystem disruption. This amplified perceptions of high-end risks in public and policy discussions, often without sufficient emphasis on their low probability. While defenders argued the extremes helped stress-test models and highlight vulnerabilities, emissions data increasingly showed that current policies project warming of roughly 2.5–3°C by 2100—consistent with moderate pathways like SSP2-4.5.

A notable course correction arrived in April 2026 with a paper outlining the Scenario Model Intercomparison Project for CMIP7, which will underpin the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report. It explicitly labels CMIP6’s highest forcing levels (such as SSP5-8.5) as “implausible.” The new framework introduces seven scenarios ranging from very low to high, without the old extreme labels but with clearly defined 2100 radiative forcing targets.

The most important change is the absence of any RCP8.5 or SSP5-8.5 equivalent. The new high-end scenario reaches only 6.7 W/m², with annual CO₂ emissions around 71 gigatons in 2100—compared to 128 gigatons in SSP5-8.5. Cumulative emissions are correspondingly lower. The previous SSP3-7.0 pathway has also been dropped, as the new high-end level features about 9% less forcing. The updated scenarios build on revised SSP narratives with more pragmatic socioeconomic assumptions. For instance, earlier high-population growth projections, particularly for Africa, had inflated some extreme outcomes; sensitivity analyses showed demographics play a meaningful role in warming projections.

This shift carries several implications. Thousands of prior studies based on the most extreme scenarios will need careful contextualization or may become less central. Future CMIP7 modeling will use more realistic ranges, treating the highest scenarios as “what-if” explorations rather than core baselines. This should reduce overemphasis on catastrophic outcomes and better align projections with observed trends in energy markets and emissions. It also encourages greater focus on near-term information, adaptation, and socioeconomic realism.

The change represents a healthy scientific self-correction. Empirical data on energy transitions, renewable cost declines, and emissions trajectories have prevailed over modeling inertia. It echoes earlier evolutions in IPCC scenario development—from the 1992 scenarios to the 2000 Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, then to RCPs and SSPs—where real-world emissions have consistently trended below the worst-case assumptions.

That said, the push for aggressive net-zero policies continues in many circles, and models will still emphasize the value of mitigation for “climate stabilization.” For the Seventh Assessment Report, however, expect moderated high-end projections and a more grounded assessment overall.

While uncertainties remain—climate sensitivity, technological breakthroughs, policy choices, and natural variability—the CMIP7 update is a positive development. It moves literature away from implausibly extreme baselines toward scenarios that better reflect plausible futures. As always in climate science, time and better data will continue to refine our understanding.

This recalibration offers hope for more balanced, evidence-driven discussions about risks, adaptation, and policy in the decades ahead.  Only time will tell as even the new highest scenarios are overstated.

Dr. David R. Legates is a Retired Professor at the University of Delaware and is the Director of Research and Education at the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.  He also is an Advisory Board Member of A Better Delaware.

Why School Board Elections Matter More Than You Think

By: Nancy Mercante, Guest Contributor

School Board elections take place on May 12^th this year. In recent years, as little as two percent of eligible voters have turned out to vote. A large part of those who vote come from special interest groups. If you’re not part of such a group, chances are you haven’t been voting in School Board elections! Our Republic depends on an informed and engaged citizenry, made up of people who pay attention to and follow important issues and vote. Educating children is an important issue.

Children are the future. Their success or failure in life is determined by good parenting and a good education. Delaware’s future depends on developing a highly skilled workforce at all levels to create and sustain a robust economy. When we fail in education, we fail our communities, our state and our nation.

Look at the role of a school board for what it is, a Board of Directors elected to oversee and steer our school districts to produce the highest possible outcomes. Many would agree that it is not happening. Our state trails the country in almost every phase of education.

The Board needs people with expertise in education, but as with any endeavor, it needs more than so-called experts. It also needs business and professional leaders, community representatives, and concerned parents to deal with diverse issues such as curriculum, security, discipline, public relations, budgets, facilities and human resources. All these functions are rolled up in an enormous responsibility to serve the needs of our children, our community and our taxpayers.

Whether a School Board succeeds or fails, its impact is widespread. Children, families, the future workforce, and even the criminal justice system are among the segments of society impacted. It is unconscionable for a community not to take an active interest in the performance of its school board as it bears so much power over the future.

Citizens for Delaware Schools (C4DS) was formed in recognition of the need to arouse public awareness of the plight of our public schools in three ways:

Highlight where the public school system is falling short.

Nationwide testing has repeatedly shown that Delaware students lag severely behind in core areas of reading, writing and math. Recently, Delaware Department of Education test scores have revealed similar underperformance.

Attract qualified and diverse citizens to run for school board.

Powerful special interest groups and in some cases the existing School Boards themselves

have exerted oversized influence over the selection of candidates on an ideological basis.

This control coupled with financial and vocal support has limited the ability to new candidates to gain the support needed to win elections leaving the majority of sitting School Board members to go unchallenged.

Publish a Voter Guide to help voters cast an informed vote.

Prior to the last three elections, C4DS has sought responses from all School Board candidates to questions regarding a variety of education issues. This information is compiled into a Voter Guide using unedited responses in the candidates’ own words. The Voter Guide is promoted through radio appearances, newsletters and articles in numerous publications to assist voters in choosing the candidates best suited to improve Delaware public schools on a non-partisan basis.

Importantly, C4DS and other well-intended organizations can do a lot to draw attention to our School Board elections, but the one thing we cannot do is to get out and cast your vote.

As a local broadcaster recently put it, “If you pass a school bus stop with ten children waiting for the bus, think to yourself that only three of them can read and do math at grade level”.  Only you the voter can bring about change. For the information you need, visit Citizens4DelawareSchools.org and be sure to sign up for our monthly newsletter.

Nancy Mercante had a career in corporate communications for major companies in the financial, pharmaceutical and telecommunications industries. She founded Citizens for Delaware Schools, a nonpartisan nonprofit, two years ago to advocate for a better education for every student in Delaware.

House Bill 400 and Delaware’s Economic Future

By: Kathleen Rutherford, Guest Contributor

Most people don’t think about where companies are incorporated—but it actually matters a lot for Delaware’s economy and everyday life in the state.

For decades, Delaware has been the go-to place for businesses to legally “set up shop,” even if they operate somewhere else. That system brings in a major source of revenue for the state through corporate fees and taxes. That money helps fund things like schools, public safety, and other services people rely on every day.

But that advantage isn’t guaranteed forever.

Recent data shows Delaware’s share of new corporate incorporations is starting to slip—from over 80% in recent years down to about 75% in early 2025. That might not sound like a big change, but in the business world, even small shifts matter. Companies pay close attention to cost, stability, and whether they can find better options elsewhere.

At the same time, other states like Texas and Arizona are actively trying to attract businesses away from Delaware by offering lower costs and simpler rules. That means Delaware is now in more direct competition than ever before.

This is where House Bill 400 comes in. The bill raises fees on LLCs and other business entities. Supporters may see it as a way to bring in more money for the state. But there’s another side to it: if it becomes more expensive to stay in Delaware, some businesses may decide it’s not worth it anymore.

It’s also important to remember that Delaware already has one of the highest corporate tax burdens in the country. In that context, increasing fees even further risks making the state less competitive at exactly the moment when other states are actively lowering costs to attract the same businesses. Instead of strengthening Delaware’s position, it could unintentionally push companies to incorporate elsewhere.

And when businesses leave, the impact doesn’t stay on paper—it shows up in real life.

Many jobs in Wilmington and across Delaware are tied to the state’s corporate system, even if people don’t realize it. Some estimates suggest that a significant share of local employment is connected in some way to this industry. If fewer companies choose Delaware, that could eventually mean fewer jobs, less economic activity, and less revenue flowing into the state.

There’s also a bigger concern: Delaware depends heavily on business-related revenue to fund its state budget. If that revenue shrinks because companies start leaving, the state has to make up the difference somewhere. That often leads to tough choices like higher taxes for residents or cuts to important services.

This is why the issue isn’t just about business policy—it’s about long-term stability for everyone who lives here.

Delaware has built a strong reputation over many years as a reliable, business-friendly state. That reputation didn’t happen by accident—it came from consistency and a system that companies trust. Once that trust starts to weaken, it can be hard to get back.

HB 400 may seem like a small policy change, but in a competitive national environment, small changes can have big consequences. The concern is that instead of strengthening Delaware’s position, it could slowly push more companies to look elsewhere—taking jobs and revenue with them.

At the end of the day, the question isn’t just whether the state collects a little more money today. It’s whether Delaware risks losing a system that has supported its economy for decades.

Kathleen Rutherford is a government relations and advocacy professional with experience in lobbying, public policy, and strategic communications in Delaware and Washington, D.C. Rutherford Consulting, Inc. provides policy analysis, advocacy strategy, and communications support that connects legislative decisions to real-world economic and community impacts.