Near the end of my interview with State Auditor Doug Hoffer today, I asked a pro forma question and got a surprisingly impactful answer.

The question: Is there anything you’d really like to tackle, that you’re not ready to take on just yet?

The answer: “I have a number of interests from my work over the years, particularly in economic development and related tax policy.” Hoffer cited his Unified Economic Development Budget Report as a source for his concerns over economic development programs, which are aimed at encouraging private-sector job growth through a variety of means, such as tax incentives and credits.

This won’t come as a surprise to those who have followed Hoffer’s work over the years. But it may come as something of a shock to the system, now that he has the authority of high office to back up his concerns. He could produce some work that would really shake the economic-development status quo.

First, his comment from today on the work that needs to be done in this area:

… to look at those job creation programs that have strategic plans and measures in place, and to find out if they have data, and if they have data, find out if it’s reliable. And I happen to know that, for the most part, they don’t and it’s not.

That’s a powerful assertion delivered in an understated way. To flesh it out, I went back and looked at Hoffer’s 2009 Economic Development Budget Report (a link to the full report can be found here). Which includes statements like:

There was “a lack of clear and measurable goals for each initiative/program”… which “is especially troubling because it has been required by law since 1993.”

“… the statutes… call for disclosure and performance reporting. They are both over ten years old. The Agency [of Commerce and Community Development] has never complied with either one.”

“… the failure to present this type of information raises some questions about the UEDB process and the willingness of the [Douglas] administration to take a hard look at the facts.”

In short, the state’s economic development programs have had virtually no effective oversight. And, in fact, have been in consistent violation of the law.  

There’s no accounting for the dollars spent (or foregone due to tax breaks and credits); there’s no consistent effort to tie specific programs to tangible results. Since the early days of the Dean Administration, we’ve been tossing money around with no clue whether it’s having any effect aside from draining the public treasury.

Just imagine the hue and cry if a Human Services program was administered in such an egregiously slipshod manner. Heaven forbid we should waste a dollar on a poor person; but big giveaways to business? Heck, why not.

Hoffer’s 2009 analysis of job trends indicated that macro-economic factors had far more impact on jobs than any state ED program:

What I am suggesting is that the state actually has very limited control over private sector job growth. The most significant factors are beyond our control. … This is not to say we shouldn’t have an aggressive strategy. Only that whatever we’re doing today may not be sufficient to overcome the large forces at work.

Hoffer also gave some concrete evidence that the Shumlin Administration is supportive of a thorough ED review, saying that Commerce Secretary Lawrence Miller “would agree that many of the [ED] programs are challenged” in data and documentation, and that Miller “is committed to” an audit of the programs.

Given Hoffer’s past research on the subject, I suspect that a future audit will discover that, more often than not, we are failing to get a good return on our ED initiatives.  

In explaining his recommendation for an increase in the state gas tax, Governor Shumlin came up with a creative explanation for why this would not constitute a tax increase. Because gas sales have gone down, “We’re not talking about needing more money than we used to raise; we’re talking about plugging the hole in the leaking bucket…”

If you follow that logic, we should respond to a recession by raising taxes on income and capital gains, because “We’re not talking about more money than we used to raise…”

But I do get his point. As vehicles become more efficient, gas tax revenues decline. Indeed, if we experience the projected large-scale conversion to electric vehicles, we’ll have to create a whole new funding system for transportation.

But the transportation fund isn’t the only leaky bucket around the Statehouse these days. This week, various legislative committees are digging into the details of Shumlin’s budget plan. And they seem to be finding leaks all over the place. Or, should I say, desperate attempts to patch the leaks with the budgetary equivalent of duct tape and Goop. In addition to the ongoing debates over the transition from VHAP/Catamount to the new health care exchange, and a proposed cut in the state’s portion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, we’ve now got downsized revenue projections for the proposed tax on break-open tickets, and questionable cuts to the mental health budget.

And it’s only Wednesday morning! We have at least three more days of budget hearings to go! What fresh hell will they bring?  

Break-open ticket tax. Shumlin wants to spend $17M on energy efficiency programs, and identified the currently untaxed break-open tickets as a revenue source. But the Legislature’s Joint Fiscal Office reports that actual revenues will only be $6.5M. The administration is standing behind its estimate of 173 million tickets sold annually, but the JFO is skeptical, since that would mean every man, woman and child in Vermont is buying more than 120 tickets a year. As Peter “Marathon Man” Hirschfeld of the Vermont Press Bureau notes, that’s “nearly three times the per-capital rate in New Hampshire, 11 times the rate in New York and 35 times the rate in Massachusetts.”

And in this battle of warring estimates, House Speaker Shap Smith is siding with the JFO, and urging the administration to “put forward other ways to fund those [energy] programs, or to decide which programs they think are a priority for funding.” Ouch.

Mental health cutbacks. I’d tell you “I hate to say I told you so,” but actually, me gusta. Last year, in my incessant opposition to Shumlin’s plan for a decentralized, community-based mental health care system, I warned advocates that the success of that system would depend on adequate and consistent funding. And it looks like Shumlin is already starting to renege.

Shumlin’s proposal would close a seven-bed locked facility in Middlesex when the Berlin hospital opens in 2014, and it contains no money for the four less-secure “step-down beds” planned for Rutland and the seven beds planned for northwestern Vermont.

Those “step-down beds” are a key feature in a system that will have significantly fewer in-patient beds. State Rep. Alice Emmons, chair of the House Committee on Corrections and Institutions, told the Freeploid “We’re not even out of the gate yet, and the budgets are being compromised.”

Admininstration officials insist they are not backing away from their promises. Acting Mental Health Commissioner Mary Moulton said planning for the Rutland beds was not complete in time for inclusion in this year’s budget, so they will be included in a later budget. That’s reassuring, not.

And as for the seven northwestern step-down beds, Finance Commissioner Jim Reardon said the administration is taking a wait-and-see approach — letting the new system develop before deciding how many beds are actually required.

Equally reassuring, not.

Sometime this week, the House Health Care Committee may vote on Shumlin’s planned transition from VHAP/Catamount to the new health care exchange. So far, Shumlin has stood his ground on the adequacy of his plan, even though some recipients will be exposed to higher out-of-pocket maximums if they actually, y’know, use health care. Ideas are floating around on how to close that gap, but they would involve revenue increases that Shumlin doesn’t like.

That vote may be an early indication whether Shumlin will get his way, or if liberal Dems and Progs are willing (or able) to force compromises on key issues.

I posted this item at the end of my “Happy Face, Sad Face” compilation on Monday, but I’m posting it here as a stand-alone item because I think it’s important to note, and has gone unnoticed in the political media.

Last week, Sen. Peter “The Slummin’ Solon” Galbraith (D-Hambone) was all in a tizzy over his interpretation of something said by Paul Burns of VPIRG. The Senator grilled Burns on the subject at a committee hearing on Tuesday, and then rose on the Senate floor Friday afternoon to deliver a “Point of Personal Privilege” accusing Burns of “extreme language and name-calling” and expressing the hope that the debate over a wind moratorium can “proceed in a civil fashion.”

That much was reported by the Associated Press last week. What was apparently missed by the entire press corps was the immediate rejoinder from Sen. Mark MacDonald:

I use extreme and say dumb things all the time. I say things I do not mean, and I sometimes cross boundaries. I know no one else ever does. [laughter]

But I will use my points of personal privilege to point out, explain, and apologize to you when I do such things, not when others do them to me.

MacDonald didn’t name names, but it’s unmistakable that he was addressing Galbraith’s fit of pique.

My question: Isn’t it unusual for a Senator to rebuke another on the floor of the Senate during an official session? I’m surprised that no other reporter took note.

After the jump: misusing parliamentary procedure.

Also, it should be noted that Galbraith violated the spirit, if not the rule, of the Point of Personal Privilege. Per the National Association of Parliamentarians:

Privileged motions are motions that are unrelated to the current motion, but are of such urgency or importance that they are considered immediately. These motions are related to members, the organization, and meeting procedure rather than the item of business being considered.

Two points. First, there was absolutely no urgency to Galbraith’s whine. And second, it was not “related to members, the organization, and meeting procedure.” It concerned remarks made by Paul Burns at a news conference. And Burns’ remarks were not directed toward the Senate or any particular member.  

It sounded good — a lawmaker citing an unusual parliamentary procedure. Made him sound real smart.

The problem is, he was wrong.  

Those words come, not from a hardcore antinuclear activist, not from an environmentalist, nor from someone at the Public Service Board… no, they come from our amigos at UBS Investment Research, which has issued another report on Entergy’s financial outlook.

The key line from its new report:

We continue to believe Entergy is likely to decommission at least one of its units, such as Vermont Yankee, in 2013.

As with UBS’ earlier report, this one focuses on a negative cash-flow outlook for Entergy covering the next five years. As that January report noted, retiring one or both of Entergy’s smallest nukes (VY and NY Fitzpatrick) “would likely drive positive FCF [free cash flow] revisions.” Smaller reactors are problematic because, says UBS, “the company needs to gain scale in its nuclear business.”

A little problem, as noted previously: when you close a plant, the clock starts ticking on the highly expensive decommissioning process. UBS notes that shareholders are concerned about this underfunded liability, and that management “attempted to allay these concerns, citing the ability to use SAFSTOR configurations at its plants to allow funds to accrue for up to 50 years… with a further 10-years for full decommissioning.”

In other words, “Hey, don’t worry — we can kick this can down the road for a couple or three generations!” Which is spectacularly unreassuring, when coming from a cash-poor company saddled with elderly plants in a sector that’s battling very tough competition from natural gas now, and from expansion of renewables in the future. Is there any reason to be confident that Entergy will still be in business and making enough money to fund decommissioning in sixty years’ time?

But wait, there’s more:  

According to UBS, management says that “decommissioning funds can be tapped up to 3% for planning purposes ahead of retirement, and 20% following the filing of a Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) with the NRC.”

Oh yay. The already inadequate decommissioning fund can be further drained by 23% through perfectly legal pilfering. That’ll help the short-term cash flow.

We’ve previously wondered why, if VY is such a drag on its finances, Entergy is fighting so hard to keep it open. Here’s a hint from UBS:

We see the greatest risk in decommissioning related to concerns by states such as Vermont over the protracted use of SAFSTOR periods to accrue adequate decommissioning funding.

Which would seem to indicate that this entire fight over license extension is nothing more than a curtain-raiser for the real fight: safely decommissioning VY and disposing of its radwaste.

UBS does offer one little point of light for Entergy: “…the NRC is likely to prove an ardent advocate of SAFSTOR.”

Yeah, good. I guess we can look forward to the Ghost of Vermont Yankee sitting empty — but SAF, cough — until the year 2083.  

Return of the Memefaces, Special Derpface Edition!!!

Governor Shumlin, takin’ one for the team by jetting off to Florida on a three-day midwinter junket with Northeast Kingdom developer Bill Stenger. Shummy and Stengy (?) will be talking up the massive NEK development project that Stenger is hoping to fund through the federal EB-5 program, which allows wealthy foreigners a free ticket to US residency if they invest enough money in an American company. S&S are probably recruiting investors, although they might just be taking a meeting with potential troublemaker Anthony Korda, the British attorney who got US residency by investing $500,000 in “a ski resort in Vermont,”  according to NPR. The report does not specify, but it’s not hard to infer that Korda’smoney went into Stenger’s EB-5 funded Jay Peak expansion.

Anyway, Korda is happy with his new Florida home but not with his ROI, which he estimates at “between 1.5 and 2 percent.” And now that he’s put out his shingle in the Sunshine State, Korda “now consults with other wealthy foreigners wanting to use the program to come to America.” Might he be advising potential immigrants about the substandard returns on Stenger’s projects? Might Shumlin and Stenger be advised to get on Korda’s good side?

Oh, and a side benefit to Shumlin’s excursion: he will, once again, be unavailable for his “weekly” press conference. It’s been a while since he actually had a full-scale presser; lately, he’s piggybacked his “press conferences” onto groundbreakings and other public events, which means his actual time answering media questions is relatively brief.

Lukas Snelling, carpetbaggin’ PR flack and head of Energize Vermont, for an underwhelming return on his Big Day at the Statehouse. He’d scheduled last Thursday as the cause’s big day to rally, lobby, and present EV’s plan for a green-energy Vermont without any additional wind farms. He even chartered buses to bring crowds from Rutland and the Northeast Kingdom. But the turnout wasn’t exactly overwhelming; EV claims “more than 100,” while I never saw more than about 80. Either number isn’t exactly compelling evidence of a “growing” anti-wind movement.

The media attention was spotty at best. As far as I know, VTDigger, the Freeploid, and the Mitchell Family Organ gave it a pass; there was some coverage on TV and radio, but overall, the publicity was less than plentiful.

EV’s plan also turned out to be underwhelming. At first glance it looked fine, but when compared to VPIRG’s plan, EV’s would create far less green power, take much longer to generate significant increases in green power, and be much more dependent on questionably green sources like nuclear and Hydro Quebec, And while VPIRG’s was a documented and fully written report, EV’s is nothing more than a Powerpoint demonstration.

To top it all off, even as the assembled dozens of activists lobbied for a three-year wind moratorium, Senate Natural Resources Committee chairman (and moratorium co-sponsor) Bob Hartwell was already de-emphasizing the moratorium in favor of a milder proposal to make decisions on new energy facilities subject to Act 250. All in all, not a great week for Master Luke.

After the jump: Bruce Lisman, Skip Vallee, The Huntsman, and pot calls out kettle.

Convenience store magnate Rodolphe “Skip” Vallee, for inadvertently gaining some effective camouflage for the much-criticized high gas prices in the Burlington area — because prices have suddenly shot up across the entire state. Coincidence? Conspiracy? Dunno, but the gas-price chart available at Bernie Sanders’ website shows that the persistent gap between prices in the northwest and in other parts of the state almost entirely disappeared about two weeks ago, and prices have tracked upward in lockstep ever since.

Hmm, what happened two weeks ago… Oh yeah, Costco got its Act 250 permit for a big gas station off I-89 Exit 16, down the street from one of Skip’s Maplefields outlets. Mebbe Skip sees the writing on the wall. Or perhaps it’s that higher nationwide prices are sufficient to quench Vallee’s thirst for profit.

Wall Street multimillionaire and cookie distributor Bruce Lisman, for finding out the hard way that Vermont Democrats have vivid memories. When top Dems held their news conference announcing a package of campaign-finance reform measures, the biggest surprise was their call for new disclosure requirements for nonprofit groups that engage in significant public-issue advocacy. And in doing so, they repeatedly mentioned Lisman’s Campaign for Vermont by name.

In recent months, CFV has been burnishing its nonpartisan credentials by more frequently using its plausibly bipartisan co-founder Tom Pelham as its front man. Not to mention spending a day helping out at the Vermont Foodbank, and launching a “listening tour” to gather Vermonters’ input about the challenges facing our state. But the Dems still recall the aggressively partisan CFV of last winter, spending tens of thousands on radio ads attacking the agenda of the Democratic majority.

Note to Bruce: It’ll take more than a few home-baked cookies to placate the Dems.

The anonymous perp who pulled off a 2002 armored car heist in Rutland, for getting away with it. The single gunman got away with $1.9 million, and eluded capture despite an intensive effort by local and state law enforcement plus the FBI. Last week, the FBI closed the case because the statute of limitations had expired.

Authorities insist that criminal charges could still be brought — for money laundering, or maybe tax evasion — but the case is formally closed, and nobody’s going to be looking for the guy.

Ace reporter Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz, for missing out on a big scoop that not only happened in front of him — he was involved in it. I refer, of course, to Beergate. Speaking to reporters last Wednesday, Governor Shumlin expressed a preference for Budweiser over them “Gucci beers” offered in upscale taverns to affluent foodies. Many of which are brewed right here in Vermont, natch.

The gaffe not only happened under Heintz’ nose, but he was involved in the key exchange. And somehow he didn’t rush to the nearest Wifi zone to post it online. I picked it up several hours later and posted a short but very popular bit, which produced a tsunami of pageviews for our humble website.

Paul, meanwhile, was left to do follow-up on a story that could have been his. He spent a good chunk of Thursday talking to Vermont politicos and beermakers, asking them about Shumlin’s statement and their own adult-beverage preferences. Sad.

 The Rt. Hon. State Senator Peter Galbraith (D-Narcissism), for taking a minor offense and lovingly nursing it through a long week of lawmaking. I guess it must be tough, like an aging baseball player forced to hang on in Triple-A, hoping for one last shot at The Show.  Once you performed on your profession’s biggest stage; now you’re riding the bus, playing under dim lights before minuscule crowds, and battling some snotnose kid for playing time.

Yes, it must be aggravating for a Global Peacemaker to be reduced to mere service in the Vermont Senate. That’s my best explanation for his protracted overreaction to comments by VPIRG chief Paul Burns. According to VPR, at Bernie Sanders’ pro-wind news conference last Monday, Burns compared anti-wind activists with climate-change deniers and creationists.

In the immortal tones of Jack Benny, WELL.

Burns testified before the Senate Natural Resources Committee on Tuesday morning — an unfriendly panel, three of whose five members are co-sponsors of the wind moratorium bill. (Thanks, John Campbell!) And Galbraith was just itching to question Burns on his comments, lambaste his incivility, and lecture him on the appropriate way to approach political debate.

Okay, fine. But now we move to Friday, and Galbraith still has his knickers in a knot. Y’know how those male-enhancement ads recommend that you seek medical attention for an erection lasting more than four hours? Well, that goes double for anyone who suffers a four-day outbreak of Bunched Knicker Syndrome.

And the Senator, rather than quietly seeking professional help, rises on the floor of the Senate to deliver a Point of Personal Privilege. To whit:

Earlier this week the Executive Director of one of Vermont’s environmental groups, in a public speech recorded by VPR, characterized those who disagreed with his organization’s position on a proposed wind moratorium, he characterized those people as deniers of the science of climate change, and the equivalent of creationists who deny evolution.

Mr. President, nine senators have co-sponsored S.30, which is the proposed wind moratorium. And I can say that Senators Benning, Hartwell, Flory, Kitchel, McAllister, Mullin, Rogers, and Starr, and also myself, are not creationists. We are not flat earthers. …We simply disagree on whether wind towers on Vermont’s ridge lines are the appropriate solution.

…It’s my hope that as this debate proceeds on one of the more contentious and important issues that this body will address, that it will proceed in a civil fashion, understanding that we all care about the environment, that we all recognize the danger of climate change, and that we have an honest disagreement about the solution. And frankly, the use of extreme language and name-calling is counterproductive to the side that uses it. Thank you, Mr. President.

I’ve addressed this bit of rhetorical legerdemain before. Paul Burns was arguably guilty of exaggeration, but I wouldn’t blame him if he was. Because he has been the target of far more “extreme language and name-calling” than anyone on the Committee or in the anti-wind movement.  In spite of my efforts to close the name-calling gap.

Just look at any opinion piece written by an anti-wind activist, or read the comments below any online article about wind energy, and you’ll see a flood of vituperation aimed at Burns, VPIRG, other environmental groups, Bill McKibben, Bernie Sanders, et al. Burns and his allies have been accused of betraying their principles for financial gain, of lying, of hypocrisy, of violating the public trust, of being part of a Big Wind cabal, of “not knowing how wind energy works,” of plotting to “destroy Vermont’s mountains.”

And that’s just a small sample. As I’ve said before, the lion’s share of the “extreme language and name-calling” comes from Galbraith’s fellows in the anti-wind camp, not from the likes of Paul Burns. I wouldn’t blame Burns if he occasionally felt like firing back.

One final note. After the good Senator had discharged his bile, Sen. Mark MacDonald of Orange arose with his own Point of Personal Privilege:

I use extreme and say dumb things all the time. I say things I do not mean, and I sometimes cross boundaries. I know no one else ever does. [laughter]

But I will use my points of personal privilege to point out, explain, and apologize to you when I do such things, not when others do them to me.

Thank you, Sen. MacDonald. Spoken with far more grace, tact, and diplomacy than I could muster.  

Oh, Freeploid, you little rascal you, trying to stir up a little trouble on a midwinter Sunday morning. Front page, Sunday paper, headline and photo reproduced in accordance with the Fair Use standard of copyright law:

See, the problem with a tabloid newspaper is you’ve got one shot to catch readers’ attention. One big story, one big picture, grab them eyeballs. If you’ve actually got a catchy story, it’s wonderful. If you don’t, and you have to manufacture one, well, you get irresponsible nonsense like TAX ON FUN.

The sad thing is, the headline sullies an otherwise fine article by Terri Hallenbeck, in which she actually explores all the issues surrounding break-open tickets and Shumlin’s proposed tax.

Here’s the problem. Well, two problems. First, governments tax fun ALL THE TIME. Alcohol taxes, amusement taxes, meals and rooms taxes. If they could get it through the legislature without laughing, they’d probably have lube-and-sex-toy taxes. (And I’d love to see the Freeploid headline about that.)

Second, if break-open tickets are your idea of “fun,” you need to get a life. A break-open ticket is a brief moment of diversion while slamming down Governor Shumlin’s Favorite Adult Beverage at a bar or social club. Go back to the Freeploid: does Grandpa look like he’s having fun?

In honor of the Freeploid’s decisive stomp over the line into yellow journalism, I offer them a new motto in the same spirit:

The Burlington Free Press: SMALLER, CRAPPIER, COSTLIER.

You’re welcome.  

On Thursday, the anti-wind group Energize Vermont released its plan for achieving a green energy future for Vermont by the year 2030. In his presentation of the plan, EV chief Luke Snelling sought to separate his group from those who deny the pressing reality of climate change. This plan, he said, proves that Vermont doesn’t need any more utility-scale wind in order to realize a clean-energy future. (It does depend on the current wind farms continuing to operate through 2030, which may be a bitter disappointment to those who claim to suffer negative health impacts from living near wind turbines.)

Problem. The plan actually proves just the opposite: it’s extremely difficult, if not impossible, to achieve a green future without additional utility-scale wind.

In this post, I’m comparing EV’s plan with VPIRG’s 2009 report, “Repowering Vermont.” First, the highlights; then the details.

— EV’s plan creates a lot less energy than VPIRG’s.

— EV’s plan makes no provision for widespread adoption of electric vehicles.

— EV continues Vermont’s reliance on nuclear power — and even increases it for a decade.

— EV relies much more heavily on power from Hydro Quebec, which has significant environmental consequences, including a need to upgrade transmission lines through the Northeast Kingdom.

— EV’s plan consumes far more fossil fuels between now and 2030, because if you take wind off the table, it takes a lot longer to grow a renewable power supply.  

VPIRG’s plan calls for the construction of six more wind farms the size of Lowell and Sheffield. With current facilities plus six more, Vermont would get 28% of its electricity needs from wind — including enough electricity to account for widespread adoption of electric vehicles.

These are all facts taken directly from the two reports.

After the jump: Five charts and a lot of information.  

Here are three pie charts. The first, from EV’s report, shows our current energy mix. The second is EV’s vision for a greener 2030. The third is the equivalent chart from VPIRG.

These charts illustrate many of my points, but they obscure one very crucial one: EV’s plan would produce far less energy than VPIRG’s. EV’s target figure is 6500 GWh (gigawatt hours), while VPIRG accounts for 8400 GWh. Both plans foresee significant efficiency gains; VPIRG makes allowances for widespread use of electric vehicles.

It gets worse. In 2030, EV sees Vermont getting 9% of its power from market sources (usually fossil fuels-based, not considered renewable) and 7% from nuclear, VPIRG includes no nuclear power and only 5% from market sources. So, if you take nuclear and market power out of the equation, EV’s plan would produce 5460 GWh of renewable power, while VPIRG’s would produce 7980.

EV’s reliance on nuclear also hits a deadline shortly after 2030. Current power contracts with out-of-state reactors expire in 2035; would EV extend those contracts? If not, where would it find an additional 7% of our power supply?

EV would increase our dependence on power from Hydro Quebec. HQ power, from huge hydroelectric dams in northern Quebec, negatively impacts the environment, wildlife, and native populations. EV would see an increase in use of HQ power from 34% today to 38% in 2030. VPIRG would reduce HQ’s share of our pie to 24%.

Also, the transmission lines from HQ through the Northeast Kingdom are maxed out, or close to it. Using more HQ power would require a major upgrade of transmission lines, which brings new costs and environmental impacts.  

There’s one more huge drawback to the EV plan, as can be seen in a close examination of these two charts. The first is EV’s, and the second is VPIRG’s.

By eschewing expansion of utility-scale wind, EV takes much longer to approach its goal, which would mean burning a lot more fossil fuel along the way. Look at the electric-power mix in the middle range of both charts, and you’ll see the effect of forgoing wind:

— EV would increase dependence on nuclear power for more than a decade, between 2015 and 2025.

— “Market sources” continues to be a sizable source for EV into the mid-2020s, while VPIRG cuts our use of market power to 5% by 2017.

— By either account, it will take another decade or more to ramp up solar power, while wind resources can be increased within a few years. Utility-scale wind can provide one-fourth of our power much more quickly than solar can get out of the single digits.

And one more question for backers of the EV plan. Many of those who are concerned about utility-scale wind have also opposed expansion of biomass and in-state hydro — and, in some cases, solar. If we turn away from wind and toward sources like biomass, local hydro and solar, will EV’s backers accept that? Or will expansion of biomass and solar result in further opposition? If so, then EV’s target becomes impossible to hit.

In sum, EV’s plan would produce a lot less power, rely more heavily on environmentally impactful sources, and would fall short of providing the power needed for widespread use of electric-powered transportation.

The question, then: Do we think the effects of a modest increase in utility-scale wind are bad enough that we are willing to accept all the shortfalls and drawbacks of Energize Vermont’s plan? Is its total environmental footprint larger or smaller than VPIRG’s?

I think the answer to that last question is obvious to anyone approaching this issue with an open mind.  

Wow. The Republicans’ chances of picking up John Kerry’s Senate seat just evaporated.

Scott Brown, who surprised the political world with his upset victory in the 2010 special election, announced Friday afternoon that he will not enter the special election to replace John F. Kerry.

Brown was the frontrunner in the Republican race by far, and recent polls gave him a double-digit lead over the likely Democratic candidates, Congressmen Ed Markey and Stephen Lynch.

Brown’s decision leaves the Republican Party scrambling to find a viable candidate for the June 25 election. To make the ballot, candidates must gather 10,000 certified signatures in four weeks.

The Boston Globe reported today that national Republicans had mounted a “full court press” to convince Brown to stay in the race.

His stated reasons for stepping aside: campaign fatigue in the face of running a third race in four years, and disaffection with the partisan atmosphere in Washington. As for his real reasons, I won’t hazard a guess and I don’t really care. Looks like the Dems will hold onto the seat.

Must be an especially bitter disappointment for national Republicans after their maneuverings over the Secretary of State nomination. They scotched Susan Rice, at least partly in hopes of clearing Kerry’s seat for another run by Scott Brown. And if it hadn’t been for Senator McDreamy’s short attention span, it probably would have worked.  

(I didn’t say the title was flippancy-free.)

This afternoon, Lucas Snelling of Energize Vermont presented his group’s plan for a future Vermont powered (predominantly) by renewable sources — without any increase in wind power. EV supports the wind moratorium bill pending in the legislature; but beyond that, EV would clearly like to see no more utility-scale wind projects in Vermont, ever.

As with this morning’s “press conference,” Snelling was preaching to the choir: a room full of (approximately 80) anti-wind activists. As with the “press conference,” there was no opportunity for questions.

Before the event began, I introduced myself to Snelling. Afterward, he sought a brief word with me. Basically, he asked me to call him before writing about him or EV or wind, and complained about the “flippant media.” It was phrased with the artful obliqueness of the professional flack, but clearly he meant me.  

And yes, I have been flippant and snarky, and I’m sure I will be again. That’s part of the stock-in-trade of the indy blogger, in case you hadn’t noticed. Flippancy also has a storied heritage in Vermont political discourse, stemming from the Golden Age of Peter Freyne, whose heights of rhetorical flippancy I can only hope to attain.

But just for this post, I shall be snark-free, and will try to enumerate my non-flippant concerns with Snelling and EV. I hope this will help people understand why I see the anti-wind crowd the way I do.

Questions and concerns… after the jump.  

EV supports a three-year wind moratorium, but its 20-year energy plan does not include any increase in wind energy at all. Do you want a permanent ban on new utility-scale wind development? Under what conditions would you accept new wind development after a moratorium?

Would you be willing to accept new wind development now, if sited appropriately? Or is there no such thing as “appropriate” wind development?

Could you disavow some of the mistruths told by your supporters — for instance, the myth that wind advocates believe wind is the “magic bullet,” rather than one part of an overall solution? And that wind advocates want rampant, widespread turbine development? (The VPIRG report calls for six more wind farms the size of Lowell or Sheffield, which would supply 28% of our power needs and cause minimal disruption to the environment. And they call for appropriate sensitivity in siting decisions.) And that wind energy would do nothing to mitigate climate change?

Vermont’s established environmental groups, including VNRC, the Sierra Club, the Conservation Law Foundation, 350VT, and VPIRG, as well as the likes of Bill McKibben and Senator Bernie Sanders, all support wind as part of a plan for an entirely renewable electricity future. Why are they wrong, in your view?

Many of your supporters have accused McKibben, Sanders, and those environmental groups of corruption — of selling out their principles in pursuit of corporate support. Do you agree?

Why should I disbelieve these established groups with long track records, and accept the word of Energize Vermont, which is a three-year-old group that has (so far) refused to release any of its financial information?

Follow-up to establish EV’s bona fides: Could you provide EV’s basic financial information? List of donors — or, if you prefer, major donors (pick a number — $500 and up, $1,000 and up); annual budget and expenditures?

I realize you are not required to do so by law. But for the sake of transparency, please consider doing so.

Follow-up on your personal bona fides:

— How much are you paid as head of EV?

— I’ve found a residential address for you in Northampton, Massachusetts. Do you live in Vermont, or is Northampton your primary home?

— You are co-owner of Brave One, a PR firm based in Holyoke, MA. How would you describe the firm’s work and your role there? Can you provide a client list?

— Your partner in Brave One is Jesse Mayhew, who also acts as head of “Wake Up, Opt Out,” a group that opposes the use of smart meters. Are “Wake Up” and EV tied in any way? Did they arise out of your firm’s work or connections?

— Do you support or oppose smart meters?

EV’s 20-year plan includes significant increases in power from Hydro Quebec, which has significant environmental impacts, as you have yourself acknowledged. If we refuse to develop wind and instead import more power from HQ, are we not exporting the environmental costs of our power needs?

EV’s plan also includes increases in power sources that have attracted opposition from some of the same people who also oppose wind. You call for a huge expansion of solar power; the first major solar farm in Vermont has attracted opposition from nearby residents. You call for more biomass and local hydro, but those sources have also attracted opposition. There seems to be a movement essentially opposed to anything new anywhere. Are you and EV willing to endorse those power sources and support their expansion, even if it means alienating some of your own supporters?

There you go. Straightforward questions from a person who freely acknowledges he is an EV skeptic. If you want to convince people like me, and there are a lot of us, then these are the kinds of questions you will have to answer. And you’ll have to rein in (or disavow) the excesses of your supporters, who routinely seek to demonize the good people on the other side of the wind-power issue.  

Well, that was bullshit.

I just went down to the Statehouse for a “press conference” called by anti-wind activists. Small problem: it wasn’t a press conference, it was a rally. The room was full of anti-wind folks, and there was no opportunity to ask questions — which is the very essence of a press conference. Instead, there were brief statements from a few people met with loud cheers and applause from the people on hand.

Now look, I understand that this isn’t the worst offense against truth. But it was a clear bait-and-switch — draw the media into a room full of advocates, give them some sound bites and a good photo-op with a sympathetic backdrop, and reap the free publicity that follows. But it’s dishonest, and unbecoming of a “grass-roots” movement.  

The event was organized by professional concern troll Lukas Snelling, public-relations professional from Northampton, Massachusetts, and head of Energize Vermont — the “green” organization that staunchly opposes utility-scale wind development. EV had organized an anti-wind day in Montpelier today, offering free shuttle buses to people in the anti-wind hotbeds of the Rutland area and the Northeast Kingdom.

Dunno how many people took the buses; I saw about 60 people in the room, which wouldn’t be much of a turnout for a “growing” movement. In fact, it’d be disappointingly small.

I’ll be heading back shortly for another “press conference,” at which EV will unveil its version of a clean energy plan. Full details will come later. Plus, with any luck, a few questions and answers. But EV handed out a summary of its plan this morning, and here’s a brief overview.

The plan aims for 90% of our power to come from renewable sources by the year 2030. VPIRG’s previously released paper, “Repowering Vermont,” calls for 100% renewable electricity by the year 2032. Score one for VPIRG.

After the jump: More nuclear, more Hydro Quebec, less power.

EV’s plan relies on continued operation of Vermont Yankee or some other nuclear source (7% of our electricity), a substantial increase in power from Hydro Quebec (24% in VPIRG’s plan, 38% in EV’s) and from Vermont hydro (6% for VPIRG, 13% for EV). EV effectively freezes wind energy at current levels, while VPIRG sees it growing to 28% of our electric needs. (VPIRG says we could hit that target with only six new projects the size of Lowell or Sheffield. Surely we can find six sites in Vermont that aren’t overly impactful to people or wildlife?)

Now, here’s a biggie, if I’m understanding it correctly. EV foresees almost stable electricity demand: from 6,000GWHs (gigawatt hours) now, to 6,500 GWHs in 2030. That would seem to be at odds with the trend toward electric vehicles, which may result in a huge bump in power demand, even if you assume significant efficiency savings.

VPIRG’s plan includes two forecasts: One, based on “strong efficiency” measures, sees a modest reduction in overall power demand. So maybe EV has a point there. However, VPIRG also projects demand growth, in the absence of “strong efficiency,” to about 8,500GWHs by 2030.

And VPIRG’s plan meets that increase in power demand.

In short, EV’s plan provides about 30% less electricity than VPIRG’s. It relies much more heavily on Vermont and Quebec hydro; bear in mind that there’s a great deal of controversy over expansion of Hydro Quebec, and legitimate questions about how green it really is. And it assumes continued reliance on nuclear.

I hope to get some answers this afternoon, and if I’m wrong about any of this I’ll correct it. But at first glance, I like VPIRG’s plan a lot better than EV’s.