Until this year, there was plenty of evidence that, whatever you think of his policies, Governor Shumlin was a skilled politician. He navigated his way to the top of the State Senate; in 2010 he won a highly competitive Democratic primary and beat a well-funded Republican opponent. In his first term, he laid the groundwork for the nation’s first single payer health care system and showed a lot of leadership in the wake of Tropical Storm Irene.

He sailed through the 2012 election, and entered 2013 with huge majorities in the Legislature. The opposition parties were scrambling, not for power, but for mere relevance.

But since the first of January, the Governor appears to have lost his political instincts and his powers of persuasion.

Let’s start with his January 24 budget address, which included several proposals that landed with a thud: slashing the Earned Income Tax Credit, imposing a lifetime cap on Reach Up benefits, and a new tax on break-open tickets.

It’s hard to imagine that an experienced pol like Shumlin couldn’t have foreseen that, and couldn’t have done some advance work. Make his case to the leadership, pave the way for his big plans. Instead, lawmakers were taken by surprise.

In the months since then, the Governor has left little or no room for compromise: barring any consideration of additional revenue increases and insisting that his plan for welfare, child care and education is an indivisible package. His public argument has consisted of repeating the same talking points over and over again. And if there’s been any backstage maneuvering, it’s been singularly unproductive.

After the jump: a pair of last-minute Hail Mary passes.

Now, as the Legislative session is nearing its end and Shumlin’s plans are foundering in the House and Senate, the Administration finally unveils revised proposals — allowing precious little time for lawmakers to consider them.

On Monday, the Administration scaled back its plan for an EITC cut and the break-open ticket tax, in a presentation to the Senate Appropriations Committee that VTDigger described as “not in the spirit of compromise, but in the tone of an executive branch issuing orders.”

Nice.

And then on Wednesday, the Administration offered a revised Reach Up plan, replacing the five-year cap with a flexible program of sanctions that penalize recipients who don’t stick to their job-search plans. As VTDigger reported, key Senators are not happy with the switcheroo:

Members of the Appropriations Committee expressed concern that they’ve received a rash of radical policy tweaks just days before they are expected to finalize the budget.

Sen. Sally Fox, who sits on the Health and Welfare Committee as well as Appropriations, believes the new plan ought to go through both — but acknowledges there’s not enough time. And advocacy groups have had no chance to offer their input.

All of which leaves me with a series of questions.

Is the Governor trying to piss off his fellow Democrats? Does he think that persuasion is unnecessary, and that when he whistles they’ll come running?

Has his attention been diverted by his new duties with the Democratic Governors Association?

At any point in the last four months, when his strategy clearly wasn’t working, did he ever consider changing course?

How much of his political skill was actually the work of Alex MacLean and others who’ve left his camp for more lucrative pastures?

In the grand scheme of things, this year’s tax-and-spending debates have been at the margins of the state budget — relatively small adjustments to a very large package. There are tougher battles on the horizon. The 2015 budget is going to be another tight squeeze, the first phase of health care reform will be going online, and Shumlin will have to reveal the specifics of his single-payer reform plan — including a big new tax structure.

Which leads to one last question: if he’s done so badly this year, how’s he going to do when things really get difficult?  

Good morning, folks. How ’bout a nice hot cup of schadenfreude with your pancakes and bacon?

Vt. Republican Party battles over its future

This cheery headline greets subscribers to the Mitchell Family Organ today. Yes, it’s paywalled; I’ll recount some highlights here within the bounds of fair use, but it’s worth actually buying a copy of the paper to get all the gory details.

The article, by Mitchell Family stalwart Peter Hirschfeld, recounts a struggle “for control of the party’s organizational apparatus,” such as it is:

The emergence of two factions – one led by Vermont Republican Party Chairman Jack Lindley, the other by Lt. Gov. Phil Scott – has pitted the old-guard GOP against a cadre of upstart reformists looking to put some distance between themselves and the Republican National Committee.

Scott, the VTGOP’s most successful politician by a country mile, put together a “Strategic Plan Committee” to figure out a return path to relevance. Its members include State Reps. Heidi Scheuermann and Patti Komline, Sen. Joe Benning, and former Douglas Administration multi-tool Jason Gibbs, currently flacking for Bruce Lisman’s Campaign for Vermont. (Which raises the question, unanswered in the article, of whether Lisman himself, and his Wall Street millions, are behind the effort. But hey, Lisman’s a self-described nonpartisan, so he couldn’t possibly be involved. Cough.)

The committee’s already strained relationship with Lindley’s office has been complicated in recent weeks by leaks, subterfuge, and a fundamental disconnect between Scott’s new brain trust and the chairman controlling their party.

That would, of course, be our friend Angry Jack Lindley. Who reacted, yes, angrily. He forced several of his cronies onto Scott’s committee, and things have escalated from there.  

Lindley and his loser buddies (including Darcie “Hack” Johnston and Mark “Hey Look, My Last Name Is” Snelling) accuse Scott of trying to hijack the VTGOP for his own benefit, arguing that it’s bad for a single elected official to dominate the party.  

Sounds like they can’t wait for Scott to go independent. Which would leave the VTGOP with how many statewide elected officials, exactly? … Oh yeah, NONE.

The core of Scott’s argument is that the VTGOP is failing due to association with the national GOP, and needs to plot its own course. The Lindley faction says the state party would be in even worse shape if not for help from the national level — pointing specifically to the $20,000 per month the state party “earned” last year by parking funds from the Mitt Romney campaign in its account.

Which is kinda like saying that a tick should be grateful to the dog. The Scott faction’s counter-argument is that if the VTGOP weren’t seen as a captive of the Fox/Limbaugh brand of conservatism, it might just be able to raise money on its own instead of being a parasite.

One final bit of comedy from Hirschfeld’s article. He asked Phil Scott if Lindley is the right man to lead the VTGOP:

“Um, I think that, um,” and here Scott pauses for a full 10 seconds. “I think he can, for now. I don’t doubt his intentions. I think he’s been working very hard to try to, I guess, re-energize the party. But we’ll see. Time will tell.”

Hirschfeld then says that “the knives are coming out for Lindley,” and that “Lindley won’t go quietly.”

Get your popcorn ready, folks.  

Well, that was… er… interesting.

David Hallquist, CEO of Vermont Electric Cooperative, recently announced his all-out opposition to new ridgeline wind projects, due to the grid’s difficulties in handling intermittent power sources like wind and solar. And on Tuesday, he brought his case before the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, which is considering new legislation on wind energy.

He spoke forcefully and briskly, the words coming so fast that the note-takers in the room had trouble keeping up. “They can’t solve the problem,” he said, referring to grid operators like ISO New England. “It’s such a complex problem, and we are MANY years away from solving it.”

He asserted that the grid is built to handle consistent, one-way power flows — the old-fashioned system, with continuously operating power plants sending electricity to customers. “Wind turbines,” he said, “are being curtailed by ISOs across the country, not just in New England.”

Well, that sounds awfully grim.

Funny, though: the committee just heard from a top VELCO official last week, and he said nothing about critical grid problems interfering with expansion of renewable power. Or, as committee chair Tony Klein put it: “I’m trying to connect the dots: why every other utility has not said the same thing. Why the Department of Public Service, the Public Service Board, VELCO, ISO New England has not said something. The buildout of renewables is continuing. You’re saying there’s no answer.”

“I’m the biggest advocate of renewables around,” replied Hallquist. “But there’s a fundamental physical problem. I don’t know why other utilities aren’t talking about it.”

And then he began talking about rates and customer resistance to higher electricity costs, and said “You can solve the problems, but you have to make investments.”

Whoops. Hold on there, pardner. Is there “a fundamental physical problem” or isn’t there?  

“Making investments will get us to a certain level, but not beyond,” he said. “You can’t get to 90% renewables [Vermont’s goal for the year 2050] with today’s physics. You can go higher than we are now, but there will be a cost.”

Ah, it’s becoming clear now. Hallquist’s clarion call about the grid’s absolute limitations won’t become critical until a few more decades have passed. Given the present pace of technological change, that’s a long, long time. And his shorter-term concern is simply about cost.

Which ignores the far greater costs of continued dependence on fossil fuels. Indeed, when asked, Hallquist endorsed a carbon emissions tax as the best way to correct the imbalances of the energy market, and bring the cost of fossil fuels in line with the cost of renewables.

By the end of the hearing, which only took about half an hour, Hallquist was agreeing with Klein on the way forward: “These problems need to be solved in order to get to our goal. You should keep the pressure on to solve them.”

The best way to “keep the pressure on”? Continue to build renewables. Force the system to adapt and make the necessary investments to facilitate a clean-energy future.

Simple. Not sure what the fuss was all about, though.  

Last week, the House Committee on Natural Resources and Energy held several hearings on wind energy. Two bills were the primary subjects: S.30, the former “wind moratorium bill” that was virtually defanged before final passage in the Senate; and H.245, a moratorium bill essentially similar to the original S.30. I attended one day’s worth of hearings (hey, I’ve got a life, y’know).

Earlier, I posted reports on the committee’s quick dismissal of H.322, which called for a study of the already-studied prospects for wind turbines in Lake Champlain; and on the discussion (in and out of committee) on the issue of curtailment.  Here’s my report on the committee’s work on S.30 and H.245.

It was a shadow play of sorts. House leadership opposes a moratorium, as does Governor Shumlin, as does committee chair Tony Klein (D-East Montpelier). The outcome was never in doubt — some sort of legislation may emerge, but it won’t include a moratorium or any other significant roadblocks to ridgeline wind — but Klein offered his opponents a polite hearing, barely bothering to counter their arguments, even when he had the evidence on his side. Give ’em enough rope…  

The Windies were represented by Rep. Mark Higley (R-Lowell), lead sponsor of H.245. He began by jumping on the “curtailment” bandwagon, which I addressed in an earlier diary. And then he moved on to a rather curious argument: that what we need is good, solid, unbiased information:

A developer comes in with big plans and offers and its perception of impact, and the “anti” groups come in with their own information. Extreme points of view. What I’m looking for, if there can be some piece the towns can hang onto, information not coming from developers or anti’s, but down the middle.

I say “rather curious” because, on a bookshelf in the hearing room, there were two big thick binders full of unbiased information: 29 reports on wind power written over the past 15 years by various state agencies and commissions, addressing the whole gamut of wind issues: environmental and health impacts, noise, potential for power generation, siting… anything you could think of has been studied “down the middle.” (Photo: Klein brandishing his binders.)

Of course, the Windies reject all those studies because, I guess, the state is in the pocket of Iberdrola or something. Which begs the question, where does Mr. Higley think we’re going to get unbiased information? And how does he define “down the middle,” since he implicitly rejects the state’s own body of work?

“So you’re not opposed to wind?” queried Rep. Klein. “You’re just interested in transparency and access? Are you opposed to wind?”

Higley ducked the question. “It’s more in regard to information for towns to make informed decisions, and alleviate the controversy as much as you can.”

Klein tried again: “If the issue is ridgelines, let’s agree on a certain height — nothing is permitted above that height. Not a ski area, a hotel, a house, a transmission line, a communication tower. I’m serious. If that is the issue, I support that 100%. What I have a problem is, ‘We want a ban on this, but not that.'”

Higley dodged, inartfully: “For whatever reason, these wind turbines cause problems.”

To sum up, he’s open to any high-elevation development except wind turbines. All he wants is unbiased information, but he doesn’t accept any of the information already available. And he’s unwilling to define the circumstances under which he would accept more wind development.  

Glad we’ve got that cleared up.

The committee then heard from Sen. Diane Snelling, who formally presented S.30 by — wouldn’t you know — professing her search for “a reasonable middle ground.” She portrayed herself as working to remove anti-wind provisions from S.30 and focus on “the decision making process.”

Klein didn’t try to rebut her arguments, and instead focused his attention on a section in S.30 banning development on state lands. “When I first read the public lands piece, my reading was they’re not going to be able to harvest any timber. [Parks Commissioner] Mike Snyder agreed.”

“I’m distressed to hear that,” replied Snelling. “I’ll have to speak with Commissioner Snyder.”

Committee Vice-Chair Margaret Cheney chimed in. “Mike Snyder testified that there are many unintended consequences. State policy is ‘active management.’ This bill would basically shut down the state parks.”

Snelling: “The [Senate Natural Resources] Committee’s intent was to protect state lands without disrupting the operation of state parks.”

And when you look at the Senate-approved version of S.30, you see the fruits of that intent — and the cause for Snyder’s concerns. The bill prohibits “Construction for any commercial purpose, including the generation of electric power” in state parks or forests. It then provides six exceptions, including visitor centers, public safety measures, telecommunications facilities (hmm), hydroelectric power (double hmm), maple syrup harvesting, and “a structure, road, or landing for forestry purposes.”

But there’s no exception for actual forestry work. And controlled timber harvesting is a primary revenue source for the state parks system.

The final version of S.30 was drafted in a hurry, as supporters softened the bill in an effort to convince a few undecided senators. Seems they didn’t iron out all the bugs.

Not that it really matters. S.30 and H.245 are going nowhere in the House. Klein did indicate he wants to move some kind of energy bill to address issues brought up in this year’s debate. He talked of requiring potential developers “to find out if there are any curtailment issues.” And he promised that “We will get something out of this committee that will further the discussion.”

Although Klein is pro-wind, he realizes the need for a process that will help “calm the waters.” Given the complete intransigence of the Windies, it’s hard to see how he can realize that goal.

More testimony is scheduled this week, and Klein is hoping to get a bill out of committee by Friday.  

It’s the hot new topic in the wind-power debate. Opponents of ridgeline wind — the Windies, I call ’em — have seized upon it as a new argument for postponing or banning new wind farm development.

So what is curtailment?

The northeastern power grid is operated by ISO New England. Its job is to maintain a robust transmission system that delivers electricity at all times to all locations. ISO is an extremely cautious organization that has conniptions at the mere notion of instability in the grid. And “intermittent” power sources, such as wind and solar, as well as net metering, raise concerns about instability.

Which has led ISO to occasionally curtail the output of Kingdom Community Wind in Lowell. And there’s the rub. The Vermont Electric Co-op has come out in favor of a moratorium, citing curtailment as a primary reason:

Wind farm turbines are not being allowed to operate at capacity, Hallquist said. “The more we put on, the more trouble we are going to have.”

… Hallquist said they are counting on every dollar Lowell wind can generate to make it cost effective. “We want every megawatt out of there,” he said.

And in testimony to the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee last week, Rep. Mark Higley, lead sponsor of a wind-moratorium bill, asserted that “the reason I sponsored the bill has to do with curtailment.” To which he later added a laundry list of Windy concerns, such as noise and property values. But that’s a subject for another diary.

The questions, then: is curtailment a reason to put the brakes on wind development? And why is ISO such a buzzkill? Shouldn’t it be welcoming our shiny new renewable future?

Let’s take ISO first. “ISO is being extremely conservative,” says Dorothy Schnure, chief spokesflack for Green Mountain Power, which operates Kingdom Wind.

“In 2009 we did a system impact study and found that there would be no impact from Kingdom Community Wind,” she continues. “We thought everything was fine. Then ISO did its own study and reported that there would be a few select times when Kingdom Wind could destabilize the grid.”

Hence, curtailments. Lost power and lost revenues, and questions about the immediate feasibility of wind farms.  But GMP negotiated with ISO, and agreed to install a big-ass piece of equipment called a synchronous condenser, which will even out the flow of voltage and will greatly reduce curtailments when it’s installed later this year.

Problem solved. Mostly, at least.  

And that seems to be the point. There are problems. ISO isn’t the most renewable-friendly organization. It’s overly conservative, which causes problems in the dawning new age of broadly distributed and intermittent power. Kerrick Johnson of VELCO, which operates Vermont’s transmission network, told the House committee: “The new steady state for the electricity industry is dynamism. Things are changing fast. There’s an explosion in large and small renewables that’s changing power supply dramatically.”

And that’s the larger point: ISO is adjusting to a new reality, and will have no choice but to keep doing so. The problems will be fixed. And trouble with ISO is no reason to stop building wind farms or other renewables.  

The House Natural Resources and Energy Committee has spent much of this week taking testimony on issues related to wind energy. Most of its attention has been focused on S. 30, The Bill Formerly Known As The Moratorium Bill, which passed the Senate with most of its original teeth extracted. (I’ll have more reports about these hearings in the next day or two.)

But the Committee took a brief timeout to administer last rites to an astoundingly ill-conceived bit of legislation known as H.322. The bill, introduced by Republican Bob Helm of Fair Haven and cosponsor by three other GOPers*, called for a study of siting wind turbines in Lake Champlain.

*Steve Beyor, Chuck Pearce, Philip Winters.

Helm came equipped with photos of wind turbine construction from the Joe Benning Collection of Ridgeline Porn, and a lovely picture of turbines in a large body of water. “Which looks better to you?” he asked the committee.

Oh, there’s just one little problem. The feasibility of wind turbines in Lake Champlain has ALREADY BEEN STUDIED by the state and by wind developers. And even though it often “feels windy” along the lake, the winds just aren’t anywhere near strong enough. Helm was informed of this fact, and the hearing quickly ended.

If Helm, Beyor, Pearce or Winters had bothered to do five minutes of research — or even simply asked the Legislative Council’s office to do the same — they would have realized their bill was a waste of time. If I were any one of them, I’d be embarrassed.  

So here’s a thing that happened just up the road a piece.

I was held by Vermont border guards for two hours in the middle of the night on my way to visit Nashville. They searched my bags at least five times. I could not help but notice how often my lingerie and “sexy underwear” were mentioned, how often the condoms they found were looked upon scathingly, and how most of the four male officers’ questions pertained to both. I was baffled as to why this was any of their business and unsure of what their objective was, other than fondling lady’s undergarments. In the end, having nothing to go on, they gave me a limited stay visa of two weeks and let me go – at 3 am in the middle of nowhere.

The above account is from a 24-year-old Canadian woman, writing under the alias “Clay Nikiforuk.”  And her lengthy detention and abandonment by Our Sainted Protectors wasn’t the end of her troubles; she would later find out that she’d been flagged as a suspected prostitute.  

That discovery came the next time she tried to cross into the US — this time on a flight from Montreal to Miami. Unfortunately for her, she was on her way to a vacation in Aruba with a married man. And here’s where our Border Patrol turned into the Sex Cops.

Righteous, the officer demanded what exactly I was doing in a bed with a married man.

“That’s actually none of your business.”

I had kicked the hornet’s nest. Inflamed, he raised his voice at me that it was his business and that adultery was a crime in America — a crime that he could deny me entry for.

…The next thing I knew he was searching my bags, pulling out condoms and waving them in my face. “I could have you charged with being a working girl! The proof is right here!”

All I could do is shake my head. This can’t be real.

“This is absurd,” I murmured. But he was on a roll.

“You want me to call his wife? I’ll tell her!”

I raised an eyebrow at him.

“She knows.”

Eventually, the blueshirt had to admit his power was limited to slut-shaming, and let her pass — with an admonition to change her wicked ways.  

He could also, of course, add some fresh detail to her ICE profile. Which became clear at the US Customs office in the Aruban airport, on her way back home.

I was detained, yelled at, patted down, fingerprinted, interrogated, searched, moved from room to room and person to person without food, water or being told what was going on for what seemed like forever. Just as I thought they were tiring of me and going to refuse me entry but at least let me back into Aruba, a ‘Bad Cop’ type took me to a distant, isolated office and yelled at me that I was full of shit. He had found information online that in the last couple of years I had been modelling and acting. This, he concluded, was special code for sex work, and I was never going to enter the U.S.A. ever again.

She ended up booking a direct flight from Aruba to Canada, bypassing the nightmare of our occasionally unhinged security bureaucracy. She’s actually been banned from the US for five years — presumably enough time to shape up, settle down, and marry a nice fella.

I feel so much safer, knowing our borders are protected from foreign hussies.  

What’s up in law enforcement these days? Nothin’ much, to judge by our two-fisted Top Prosecutor’s latest declaration of war (as reported by Peter Hirschfeld behind the Mitchell Family Paywall):

Attorney General Bill Sorrell looks to have identified the next target in his war on childhood obesity.

…Sorrell on Wednesday trained his crosshairs on the fast food industry. Specifically, Sorrell said he wants to scrutinize – and possibly find new ways to regulate — advertising geared toward young children.

First of all, let’s make it clear that the fast food industry is a bane of our existence, as it encourages and fuels our obesity epidemic for the sake of profit. My complaint here is (a) I don’t see why this is the Attorney General’s responsibility, and (b) Sorrell doesn’t know what, if anything, he’s actually going to do.  

Sorrell said it’s still too early to say what form legal or regulatory intervention might take.

… Assistant Attorney General Wendy Morgan said attempts to restrict commercial speech are always legally challenging.

“It would be fair to say we’ve just begun to think about this,” Morgan said. “We do know there are serious First Amendment concerns.”

And…

Rep. Mike Fisher, a Lincoln Democrat and chairman of the House Committee on Health Care, said he’s unsure what, if anything, lawmakers can do to more tightly regulate the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent to boost consumption of unhealthy foods.

In sum, Bill Sorrell launches a new crusade on an issue that’s tangential to his job, he has no idea what he’s going to do about it, and some very smart people say there’s nothing much he can do.

All the hallmarks of a well thought-out policy proposal.  

There’s an old Dilbert cartoon in which the pointy-headed boss tells his employees that they’ll get a positive evaluation if they eat a bug. A bug of the boss’ choosing. A nice big bug.

I envision a similar conversation on the fifth floor of the Pavilion Building between the Governor and a group of child-care advocates and providers. Because on Monday, they marched to a podium in the Cedar Creek Room and ate a bug.

Not literally, but metaphorically; they endorsed the Governor’s proposed cut in the Earned Income Tax Credit, with the money going to better child care subsidies for the working poor. It was clearly another effort by the Shumlin team to save his extremely unpopular proposal. But it was pretty clear the advocates were having trouble getting their bugs to stay down.

Julie Coffey of the Building Bright Futures Council, as quoted in VTDigger:

“I thankfully don’t sit in the Legislature and have to make the decision, the tough decision that they make every day in where to find funding … it’s the time to prioritize, and we appreciate the governor’s commitment to prioritize early childhood investments,” she said.

May I pause here and highlight a comment posted beneath this story by Sen. David Zuckerman?

When I had breakfast at an event sponsored by many early childcare providers, including Building Bright Futures, most of the providers I spoke with were not supportive of the EITC cut to fund the proposal. Many wanted an increase in funding, but the vast majority did not support the funding mechanism.

I am wondering whether building bright futures and other early childcare groups actually polled their members (thoroughly) to come to the conclusion to support this, or whether it was a board decision?

I am wondering, too.

Returning to our bug-eating theme, here’s a quote reported by Peter Hirschfeld behind the Mitchell Family Paywall:

“This is what was put in front of us,” said Jody Marquis, owner of a child care center in Newport.

Yeah, eat that bug!

I can understand the advocates’ position. They’re in an underfunded business, and they’d like to do more. The Governor is offering them the chance — but only if they go along with his “take from the poor and give to the poor” funding scheme.

After offering her version of a one-star Yelp review — “We ordered the poached salmon, but this is what was put in front of us” —  Marquis went on to parrot Shumlin’s EITC talking points almost word for word:  

“We are all being asked as a society to look at budgets, not spend more and not raise taxes. … This is the best way to take those funds and redistribute the money in a way that they get a better return on their investment.”

Methinks she was well briefed. And then there’s this interesting tidbit from Hirschfeld:

Child care providers are putting more than words behind their advocacy. Vermont Birth to Three, one of the groups represented at the news conference Monday, has hired the Statehouse lobbying firm KSE Partners to push for the cuts to the tax credit.

Hmm. Can’t say I’m familiar with Vermont Birth to Three, but from a review of its website, it doesn’t look like it has the resources to hire Montpelier’s leading Democrat-connected lobbying shop. Perhaps they’ve gotten a generous donor to pick up the tab, eh?

If someone from VBT would like to disclose KSE’s fee and how they’re paying it, we’d be happy to pass along the information. But wherever the money is coming from, one thing is clear: the Governor is beginning yet another phase of his sputtering campaign for the EITC cut. This time, it’s a power play.

___________________________

p.s. I can’t resist this little howler from the VTDigger account. Its penultimate paragraph:

State officials say they don’t know what percentage of families that receive the EITC would benefit from the increased child-care subsidies.

Funny, that. Because earlier in that very same story, we learn that the EITC “benefits about 45,000 low-income working families,” and that Shumlin’s proposed changes in child-care subsidies “would make roughly 900 additional families eligible.”

This is not new math. The Public Assets Institute pointed it out months ago, and I’ve previously mentioned it in this space. If state officials “don’t know,” it’s simply because they choose not to know. Or they’re just lying.  

In the most recent of his ongoing series of opinion pieces on wind energy, Sen. Joe Benning counseled us all that “Anger Isn’t Necessary.” The good Senator delivered stern admonitions against anger and personal attacks — not to mention “savagery with acerbic wit” by an anonymous blogger (cough*ME*cough).

Apparently he can dish it out but can’t take it. Because the earlier installments in his anti-wind series were full of anger, personal attack, and overheated rhetoric. (Acerbic wit, not so much.)

In part 1 of his series, Benning made his first printed reference to “rape,” after having been traumatized by a visit to Lowell Mountain during construction of the Kingdom Community Wind Farm. The rape, he called it, of “a pristine environment.” Guess he’d never been there before, since the site had been commercially logged for decades before Kingdom was built. And I guess he’d never visited a construction site of any kind before; they’re all pretty darn messy. Kingdom Community has cleaned up very well since then.

I do hope the Senator feels the same way about other big development plans. For instance, the massive Bill Stenger project that will wreak widespread destruction on the pristine slopes of Burke Mountain to make way for a massive ski resort. That finished product will be far more disruptive to the natural environment than any wind farm.  

Further on, Benning tries to put words into the mouths of wind supporters: “Big wind proponents claim these projects are the magical silver bullet that will solve our electric needs and cure man’s contribution to global pollution.” In fact, nobody has ever described wind as the sole solution, let alone a “magical silver bullet.” We see wind as one part of a multifaceted transformation of power generation.

Then he asserts that we need to evaluate whether wind is appropriate for Vermont, analyze the data on power production from wind farms, and develop a comprehensive energy plan. Which ignores the fact that all this work has been done, thoroughly, deliberately, inclusively, over the past 15 years or so. The state has examined the potential of wind power and identified a modest number of ridgeline sites that are economically viable. It has explored wind farms’ impacts on surrounding ecosystems, and found them to be minimal or nonexistent. It has reviewed the evidence on health impacts, and found them to be minimal or nonexistent. It has developed a comprehensive energy plan.

The work has all been done. The problem for Senator Benning is that he doesn’t like the conclusions. He wants the issue studied and studied and studied again until he gets the answers he wants.

The Senator really hit his angry, personal-attacking stride in his second opinion piece, in which he described the invasion of “gargantuan wind machines put up by rich, out-of-state developers” who wrap themselves “in an appealing cloak of green” while enriching themselves by destroying the environment. He also depicted Bernie Sanders and Bill McKibben as the spearheads of “a well-funded media splurge.” If that isn’t anger and personal attack, I don’t know what is.

The thesis of his piece is a comparison between today’s Windies and Ethan Allen’s Green Mountain Boys, valiantly fighting against rich outsiders who plotted to evict or enslave them. Speaking as a wind advocate who is neither rich not an outsider, who doesn’t stand to earn a dime off any wind turbine (and who is, in fact, willing to pay somewhat higher electricity rates in order to limit the damage of global warming), and who has a lot of respect for the individuals and environmental groups that Benning is so thoroughly trashing, I find the Senator’s rhetoric insulting. Also misleading. And wrong on the facts.

Then came part 3, which was even angrier than parts 1 or 2. And I suppose the rising tide of rage from Benning is understandable, considering that his pet legislation, S.30, had been thoroughly dismantled by the State Senate. His wishes would not be realized; his arguments had failed to convince. In that circumstance he could either stand down or double down. He chose the latter.

He talked about wind proponents being “obsessed” with a technology that destroys mountains, kills wildlife, imperils human health, fails to generate much power, destroys democracy and permanently scars the landscape. And called wind power a “nightmare.” And asserted that opponents of S.30 had failed to read or understand the bill.

Well, if that’s not anger and personal attack, I don’t know what is. Listen, Joe, if you want respect for your side, you’ll have to offer some to your opponents. So far, you’ve done quite the opposite. If you’re occasionally the target for anger and personal attack, it’s only because we get a little tired of receiving it from you and your allies.

It doesn’t help that Benning is lying about the real aim of S.30. He claims to want more time for conversation, analysis and study. But, as Rep. Tony Klein told VPR, every S.30 supporter he’s talked to is opposed to any new ridgeline wind development anywhere in Vermont. S.30 is about stalling as long as possible, trying to run out the clock on wind development. It is not about conversation and study.

That includes Joe Benning himself; he’s made his views on ridgeline wind abundantly clear. He may claim that he wants a discussion, a civil dialogue. But in his mind, the debate is already over.