It’s bad enough when we hear gross exaggerations, misleading statements, and downright lies from the true believers in the anti-wind crowd. It’s even worse when we hear them from two State Senators, one of whom has laughably been installed as chair of the Natural Resources Committee.  

Recent statements and writings from Bob Hartwell and Joe Benning, co-sponsors of a three-year moratorium on new wind projects,  have made it clear that they’ve drunk the Kool-Aid, and will use their influence to sabotage the implementation of a truly clean, safe, and reliable source of power. They claim they just want a three-year moratorium, but their rhetoric clearly reveals a staunch, unbending opposition to utility-scale wind.

Lest you think I exaggerate, allow me to turn to Benning’s recent opinion piece on VTDigger, which begins with a comparison of wind-farm development to rape.

Rape.

Really, Joe? You sure you want to go there?

His comment came after a visit to the Lowell Mountain construction site, which left him “horrified” at the “destruction.” Well, yes, a construction site in progress is never a pretty thing. But mountain ridgelines are kinda rugged, being made of rock and all. Go back a hundred years, and our “pristine ridgelines,” not to mention the entire landscape of Vermont, had been “raped” through clearcut lumbering and the opening of broad expanses to sheep farming, not to mention the godawful sludge we routinely dumped into our rivers and streams.

Fast forward a few decades, and our thoroughly “raped” countryside — “raped” far beyond anything that turbine construction could possibly accomplish — and the landscape has regained its pristine character.

I’m not saying that wind turbine construction has no impact. But the likes of Hartwell and Benning do their cause no favors with their wildly overblown rhetoric.  

You may recall the following pair of photographs posted on GMD by frequent contributor “simplify”:

Yes, wind turbines do carry environmental costs. But not nearly as heavy as the costs of nuclear, coal, oil, tar sands, or any future expansion of northern Quebec hydro power. Not to mention to looming and irreversible destruction of global warming. Even if we kept every single one of our ridgelines “pristine,” the carbon ain’t stopping at the Vermont border. If we don’t do everything we can to limit carbon emissions as quickly as we can, those ridgelines will never, ever be the same.  

And the limited environmental impact would cover a very small area. VPIRG’s 2009 report “Repowering Vermont” draws a roadmap to a completely renewable energy future. It says that six more projects the size of Lowell or Sheffield could provide more than 25% of our energy needs.

Six.

To get the same amount of energy from community-scale turbines, you’d have to build nearly 8,000 of them. How much impact on our environment and our viewscapes would that create?

In his VTDigger piece, Joe Benning asserts that “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.” That’s a lie. Nobody claims that wind is the “silver bullet.” It’s a necessary part of the overall solution. VPIRG’s vision calls for a balance of wind, solar, hydro, biomass, plus a few others. But you can’t get to 100% without a significant contribution from wind. It’s the single biggest piece of VPIRG’s energy pie.

Hartwell and Benning have unrolled a new argument against wind: “the clear-cutting of hundreds of acres of trees that are our best carbon vacuum cleaners.” Sounds impressive, no?  “Hundreds of acres” is a lot of trees.  

The problem with that argument is, it undermines the rest of their case. Because “hundreds of acres” is a tiny, tiny fraction of Vermont’s 4,460,000 total acres of woodlands. To argue that cutting “hundreds of acres” out of that four and a half million will somehow negate the benefits of wind energy is absurd. It shows how far wind opponents are willing to go, how far they are willing to stretch the truth, to fabricate arguments against wind.

There are other anti-wind arguments. Indeed, one of the features of the anti-wind movement is the proliferation of their arguments. It’s like playing Whack-a-Mole — you disprove one claim, they switch to another one. I suggest a visit to VPIRG’s wind energy website, which gathers information about the benefits and impacts of wind — including an independent review of scientific literature that concludes there is no evidence to support claims of harmful health effects from wind turbines.

Also worth mulling over is a report from the Sierra Club, published last year, showing that prominent anti-wind advocates and groups often receive significant funding from fossil-fuel interests, who seek to delay or defeat renewable energy so they can go on making big profits pumping carbon into the atmosphere.

In 2012, the emergence of a small but highly vocal anti-wind movement caught Vermont’s environmental groups off guard. This year, the environmental community is ready to fight on behalf of wind as part of a broad-based portfolio of renewable energy. Last week’s formal announcement of the Hartwell/Benning moratorium bill was countered by a joint statement from VPIRG, the Conservation Law Foundation, 350Vermont, the Vermont chapter of the Sierra Club, the Vermont Natural Resources Council, the Citizens Awareness Network, the Northeast chapter of the National Wildlife Federation, and the Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Alliance. If you think that all those groups have abandoned their core mission, you are wrong. I’ll stand with them, and against an ill-considered moratorium supported by specious arguments.  

Ah, it seems like only a couple of days ago that I was celebrating a new era of openness and cooperation in the State Senate, with its Penitent Pro Tem John Campbell vowing to change his ways — and tangibilizing that change with the appointment of Phil Baruth as Majority Leader.

Come to think of it, it WAS just a couple of days ago. And already I’m having second thoughts.

I’m old enough to remember “the new Nixon,” the discredited loser in 1960 (presidency) and 1962 (Governor of California) repackaged and repositioned for his 1968 Presidential campaign. Turned out to be the old Nixon with a new-Nixon mask on.

Similarly, the new Campbell is starting to look a bit like the old one. His reshuffling of Senate committees was positive in many ways, but also bore the classic Campbell touches: a vengeful streak and a soupçon of political arrogance, There’s also significant room to doubt whether his new, steady-hand leadership will survive the stress of a new session.

Campbell seemingly flouted Governor Shumlin’s wishes in packing the Natural Resources Committee with supporters of a three-year wind moratorium. The measure is unlikely to pass the House even if it clears the Senate; but as committee chair, moratorium co-sponsor Bob Hartwell can cause a whole lot of trouble on wind, as well as smart meters and regulatory review for new energy projects. (With the state’s major environmental groups planning to ramp up their pro-renewables campaign, Hartwell’s committee may become a signficant battleground.) Beyond that, the memberships of both Natural Resources and Finance appear unfriendly to environmental initiatives across the board.  

Campbell’s mean streak was on display in the shafting of Ginny Lyons, longtime chair of Natural Resources, who was removed against her will (and without any good reason) after pushing hard for a reappointment; she left the building without comment after the committee lineup was announced. Also, there was Ann Cummings’ jump-before-she-could-be-pushed departure from the Finance Committee chairmanship.

The naming of Prog/Dem Tim Ashe as chair of the Finance Committee might seem to be a blow against Shumlin’s hold-the-line position on tax increases, but Ashe sounds like he’s willing to play nice. Peter Hirschfeld of the Vermont Press Bureau (article published in the Friday Times Argus; available behind a paywall here) reported that Ashe is “eager to help Gov. Shumlin fulfill a pledge not to raise broad-based taxes.”

Which kinda leaves me wondering how much Prog is left in this Prog/Dem, and whether he had to make any promises in order to land the chairmanship, but let’s move on.

The real worm in the Senate apple might, ironically, be Campbell’s most bruited reform measure: his promise to bring some contentious bills to a floor vote whether they are cleared by committee or not. As Seven Days’ Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz reported, this has ruffled more than a few feathers among Senate vets who are fond of the committee system — especially those who will be chairing committees, and don’t want to see their authority diluted.

But beyond that is another sticky wicket. The committee system acts as a safety valve, allowing leadership to smother inconvenient legislation. If issues like death with dignity, marijuana legalization, and a wind moratorium are brought to the floor, then Senators will have to cast some politically dicey votes. That’s part of the job in many cases; but if a Senate bill is likely to be killed in the House, then those votes will have been cast in vain. And they may prove to be political albatrosses in 2014. Legislators don’t like to stick their necks out for no good purpose, and Campbell’s reform has opened the door to exactly that.

Sometime between now and adjournment — or multiple times — Campbell may have to choose between breaking his single biggest promise and forcing his colleagues to take risks without potential reward. Either way, all those senators who stifled their doubts and granted Campbell another chance may well come to rue their generosity.  

I’m not a big fan of Sunday morning talk shows. The national ones are tedious and repetitive, the same Washington insiders spouting the same conventional wisdom, even when they manage to go a week without John McCain’s bloviations. But I see that I missed something last Sunday: an appearance by Bruce Lisman on WCAX’s You Can’t Catch Me — er, I mean, You Can Quote Me. His presentation was designed to reposition his vanity proj — I mean, nonpartisan advocacy group, Campaign for Vermont. (One apparent casualty of the repositioning: the word “Prosperity,” which has sometimes been appended to CFV’s name.)

As far as I can tell, this was his first significant media appearance since former Douglas Administration stalwart Jason Gibbs came on board as CFV’s communications consultant. Looks like Jason recommended a new, more friendly, bipartisan face for the organization.

The interview included numerous claims of nonpartisanship and political centrism; an indirect admission that CFV made a mistake by introducing itself to Vermonters through a blitz of anti-Democratic radio ads; an acknowledgment that he’s spent “about $400,000” on CFV and hopes to start raising some money from other people in the new year; a hedged denial that he has any political ambitions; and lots and lots of long, ambling, unfocused answers delivered in a near-monotone. (Interviews are not the man’s strong suit.)

You want details? We got details…

Although CFV seems to have dropped the word “prosperity,” Lisman made it clear from the gitgo that his sole focus is on building “a diversified and dynamic economy” that can (somehow) create “more jobs than there are people.” I hope he didn’t really mean that; it’s an impossible goal.

Anyway, rebranding. Here’s how he sought to define CFV. (And I should warn you, reading extended Bruce Lisman quotes can lead to headaches, dizziness, nausea, and disorientation. The operation of heavy machinery while reading Bruce Lisman quotes is contraindicated.)

We’re trying to build this coalition of Vermonters regardless of political orientation, you know as long as it’s center left or center right, kind of fits the moderate definition, and we’re trying to engage in coalition in big ideas and think there’s more influence to be had and more power in nonpartisan than there is in being political.

Nice of him to admit that he’s seeking “influence” and “power” there. Gee, I thought he was just trying to elevate the terms of political discourse. Freudian slip?  

As for how and why CFV got labeled as a conservative group, the finger of blame pointed ever outward:  

Sometimes a new and different entity — I think we’re an advocacy group that wasn’t around for one issue, wasn’t around for one six-week period, but here it is a year plus, year and a half later, if you will, and we’re still rolling out our ideas and trying to influence, if you will, the course of discussion. I think faced with something new, people were quick to say, I might like their ideas, but I’d like to have it defined by their political orientation and I’ve said from the beginning, if you like our ideas, you don’t need any particular further definition. But I understand how things are and in particular, in the business of politics can get mean, so just labeling things does take place.

Whew!

When you boil down all that prolixity, if you will, what you get, if you will, is “Campaign for Vermont is so new and different that you people didn’t get it.”

Uh-huh.

Really, Bruce, you came by your unwanted labeling the old-fashioned way: you earned it. You earned it through ads and position papers that almost exclusively hewed to a right-wing, free-market view of the world, while offering nothing but criticism for Vermont Democrats. It didn’t help that many of your early attacks were later employed by the Republicans during the campaign.

On CFV’s finances, the last we heard, Lisman had spent about $200,000 on that big initial ad blitz of last winter. Now he says he has spent “about $400,000.” Here’s how he explains his big political investment, which was second only to Miss Daisy, Lenore Broughton, herself:  

What I said from the very, very beginning was that I would finance this enterprise because it’s different. I don’t — I didn’t know if it had been done before. I didn’t claim to know a lot about politics and know probably even less today, but I was learning about public policy and I wanted to be able to show people that we could grow an enterprise that would last, that had good value, and would gather support. And so — and that’s why I financed it, to show — I thought I should put my money where my brain was on this. Money to action, if you will. I’ve got a goal this year of making it sustainable, just to raise money from others, so it continues for a long time.

I tell you, you listen to Lisman talk, if you will, and you wonder, if you will, how in Hell he rose to the top of a Wall Street giant. But let’s again boil this down: He self-funded it because he didn’t know any other way to build an advocacy group. Not for this former Bear Stearns executive to beat a path through the grass roots and build a movement through the quality of ideas. Instead, he took the rich man’s route: buying himself a place in the public square.

What’s more, he pretty much admits that a lot of that money was wasted — indeed, was counterproductive. Darren Perron brought up CFV’s early radio blitz, which was harshly critical of the Democrats without calling them by name. The essence of Lisman’s response, stitched together out of his scattered replies: He said that in its first year, CFV “tended to be a little more reactive” than they plan to be from now on; he also claimed that there was only one ad directly slamming the Democrats, which is either an outright lie or massively misleading.

When pressed on whether 30-second attack ads are an appropriate means of “elevating discussion,” he replied, “I don’t think you will hear us offer that kind of ad this year, 2013.” When asked if the ads were a mistake, he said “No,” but then admitted that “What I’ve learned, learning as we go, 30 seconds or 60 seconds doesn’t allow you to explain the context for things.”

That’s about as close to “We screwed up” as you’re likely to hear from a guy who doesn’t think Wall Street did anything particularly wrong in the runup to the 2008 economic implosion.

Most of the second half of the interview was about education. And if you think the excerpts I’ve included above were scary, you ought to try to plow through his endless circumlocutions on education policy. Me, I’m gonna give it a pass.

Two more notes from the interview. First, he was asked about a possible run for office, and he issued the standard non-denial denial:

I don’t have a plan to run for office. I have a plan to keep Campaign for Vermont as a nonpartisan entity and through that, influence those who are in politics.

And when he was asked if that meant he’s never going to run for office, he again stopped short of an absolute denial: “Never plan to run.”

And toward the very end of the program, Lisman was asked about the proposed wind-energy moratorium. And he absolutely ducked the question:

There should be a really good discussion. One thing we said in our — we put out our energy piece, is — and I’ve said a couple of interviews and certainly experience, we’re in favor of renewables and we’re in favor of retaining the best of Vermont and regardless of what I say here, I wouldn’t be here unless I loved the state and you wouldn’t either. We choose to be here, mainly. Is there a reason to make it better, more interesting, all that? Of course. The issues around energy are quite complex, but to simplify it quickly, the state is very focused on electricity. It’s only 12 or 15 percent of the total energy package —

At which point he was interrupted, as time was almost up and the inquisitors tried one final time to get a straight answer. “Wind moratorium, where does Campaign for Vermont stand on that issue?”

I don’t know if we need a moratorium, but we need a discussion because electricity rates are the highest in the country and alternatives haven’t come on, and there are questions about transmission lines above 20%, so the answer is we need to consider how we’re introducing and how much we’re asking people who want afford it, how much they can spend.

Wow. This, from the person who wants to elevate our discourse. This poorly stated, incompetently veiled adherence to free-marketism. He may want you to believe that CFV is a mainstream, broad-based movement, but so far it remains entirely his creation. And for him, every issue is about money and business. He spent his career in the canyons of Wall Street, and it shows.  

Belated posting with my apologies. Vaguely Disturbing Cartoon Edition.

Governor Peter Shumlin, for grabbing Vermont politics and government by the scruff in a New Year’s blitz of announcements and initiatives. And just to top it all off, the guy schedules an outdoor event for early January and comes up with a warm, sunny day. What, did he appoint The Man Upstairs as his new Secretary of Meteorological Arrangements?

He began his 2013 offensive by addressing one of 2012’s biggest scandals (the Jim Deeghan case). He called for a new law that would let government claw back a public sector employee’s pension benefits if they were gained through fraudulent activity. Then came a series of personnel shuffles plus a hint of major education reform initiatives to be announced this week.

After that came new transparency measures, allowing everyone to get more information about state government online, not to mention a proposal for greater public access to records of criminal cases and investigations.

Monday brought some well-conceived measures to reduce recidivism, and Tuesday was the dedication of the new mental health care facility to be built in Berlin, plus the news that its funding is pretty much taken care of through a combination of FEMA funds, insurance payments, and money already set aside in last year’s budget.  

The Gov has certainly hit the ground running. What’s especially noteworthy is that most of these efforts are not the stuff of sexy headlines — they’re a matter of honestly trying to make government work better and more efficiently. Good stuff.

With one exception…

Governor Peter Shumlin, for persistently ducking and evading any sort of a stand on gun control. And for not making a whole lot of sense when he did say something.

There is some merit in his advocacy of a 50-state solution, but it’s hard to accept that there is no role whatsoever for states or governors, especially those who pride themselves on their leadership. Couldn’t we at least tighten our incredibly lax gun laws to match those of nearby states? Do we really need, for instance, to allow 16-year-olds to buy guns and carry concealed weapons?

Beyond that, there is absolutely no merit in Shumlin’s call for some kind of measure to keep dangerous weapons away from the mentally ill. The American Psychiatric Association says that “The vast majority of violence in our society is not perpetrated by persons with serious mental disorders.” Just look at the recent Bennington case of a respected schoolteacher who suddenly started posting threatening messages online, and was seen loading his Bushmaster into the trunk of his car on a Sunday evening. If he intended harm to students or staff, no amount of mental health screening would have prevented him from (a) owning a weapon of war — he’d bought it a few years earlier — or (b) snapping without any prior warning or diagnosis.

And although Shumlin has said he would support “sensible” gun legislation on a national level, one has to question exactly how he would define “sensible.” The only restriction he’s called for is the unattainable “keep guns away from crazy people.” Hell, he’s refused to say whether the Bushmaster qualifies as a weapon of war. And given his high ratings by the NRA, I’m left to wonder if he shares that organization’s definition of “sensible.”

After the jump: Fresh air in the Senate, another obnoxious agri-giant, the Vermont Democratic Party, and more.

State Senator Phil Baruth, Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell, and (we hope) the people of Vermont, for what appears to be some real change for the better in the Senate. In the 2012 session, Campbell repeatedly slammed the less senior Senators (including Baruth) while running an often-dysfunctional chamber. When he had to run for re-election as Pro Tem, he promised better organization and communication.

The ascension of Baruth to the position of Majority Leader is a concrete sign that Campbell will let some fresh air into the musty chamber. Our best to Phil on his new post, even though we fear his new responsibilities will make it even harder for him to keep up his renowned blog, Vermont Daily Briefing (last updated November 2). But if we must, we will happily trade an incisive, well-written political blog for a more open and productive Senate.  

Vermont’s toothless laws against operating unlicensed hunting preserves. Last week, two Fairlee residents were accused of operating a private hunting ground. They charged customers as much as $6,000 for the chance to bag a moose, boar, buffalo, or other animal.

Steven Hill, 51, and Chiaki Ito, 21, both of Fairlee, were accused Friday of seven counts of operating an unlicensed captive hunting facility. They face up to $1,000 in fines for each count and could lose hunting, fishing and trapping licenses for up to three years.

And there’s the rub: these guys were raking in the dough for illegal hunting, and the maximum penalty is $7,000 in fines. That’s not much of a deterrent. The state no longer issues new permits for hunting facilities because they can harbor dangerous diseases. If Vermont has a real interest in limiting private hunting grounds, it needs to stiffen the penalties for offenders.

The Vermont Democratic Party, not rebuilding but reloading. After a dominant performance in 2012, the VDP has made a couple of behind-the-scenes hires aimed at cementing its hegemony. The party is hiring Ryan Emerson as communications director and field director, and Nick Charyk as  political director. Both men came to prominence in last year’s campaign. Emerson brought TJ Donovan within a $200,000 SuperPAC injection of upsetting Attorney General Bill Sorrell and then spearheaded Treasurer Beth Pearce’s lopsided win over Lenore Broughton’s checkbook — er, I mean Wendy Wilton.  Charyk was director of the Vermont Democratic House Campaign, which overcame Lenore Broughton’s checkbook and added to the Democratic majority in the House.

The hires provide steady employment for a pair of up-and-coming political minds and add to the Democrats’ organizational power, at a time when the Vermont Republicans still don’t have any paid staff and are counting on Reagan-era retread “Angry Jack” Lindley to create a youth movement in the VTGOP. Lookin’ good for 2014, folks.

Processed food giant ConAgra Foods, for stealing Bo Muller-Moore’s “Eat More Kale” slogan. A new ad for its Healthy Choice frozen yogurt features a woman who claims to be a recovering kale-aholic. Early in the commercial, she is shown wearing a fake “Eat More Kale” T-shirt — with a different design than Bo’s, but definitely the same slogan. (The cherry on top of this shit sundae:  the amply-proportioned woman is shown jumping and shaking in slow-motion so we can all be mesmerized by her bouncing bosom.)

It’s bad enough that one giant purveyor of industrial food, Chick-Fil-A, is trying to stop Bo from using his slogan. Now we’ve got another one attacking from the other side.

I can only hope, for the sake of cosmic justice, that ConAgra will be sued by Chick-Fil-A for trademark infringement.  

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, for once again having to settle lawsuits over its failure to prevent child sexual abuse by priests. The latest development is just one small step in a long, painful journey toward truth and reconciliation — a journey that the Church has actively resisted in every possible way. There are many noxious elements to this sad story, but I’ll tick off a few that really tick me off:

— The Church put the interests of itself and its priests above all else, sweeping allegations under the rug, refusing to share information with law enforcement, and constantly shuttling accused priests from church to church and diocese to diocese.

— Even while evading its responsibility, it has continued to claim absolute moral authority. We’ve been told that sexual abuse in the priesthood is rarer than in other professions. Well, it should be rarer. It should be NONEXISTENT, no? And the fact that it’s relatively rare doesn’t excuse the Church’s decades (probably centuries) of negligence. At the same time, they’re denying the Eucharist to pro-choice politicians, urging their parishioners to vote Republican, and making vast and arrogant claims of religious privilege.

— Its internal structure has made a mockery of the civil justice system. For doctrinal purposes the Church is a single entity directed by the Vatican; but financially, each diocese is a separate entity. That means the pasty old men in the pointy hats never have to fear selling off their treasures, even though they clearly allowed a corrupt system to continue. Whatever the Burlington Diocese is paying out — and they won’t tell you how much that is — we know one thing for sure: not a penny is coming from Rome.  

(The projected title of my forthcoming children’s book, based loosely on today’s gubernatorial event.)

I think it’s safe to say that a politician is on a roll when he schedules an outdoor news event for early January in Vermont, and he draws a sunny day with unseasonably warm temperatures. So yeah, Governor Shumlin is on a roll.

The Governor was happy as a pig in you-know-what as he presided over the dedication of the future state mental hospital in Berlin. And revealed the funding sources for the $42 million project, which (he says) are already accounted for, and will require no state funding aside from amounts already set aside.  

Construction won’t actually start for another nine days (completion projected for early spring 2014), but there was a definite air of victory and celebration. Shumlin was surrounded by state and local officials*, legislative leaders, FEMA’s top liaison with Vermont, a friendly crowd that applauded frequently (news media excepted, natch), and a guy who I assume was Shumlin’s security, wearing the Winter Ensemble from the Secret Service Men’s Catalog and a pair of Samuel L. Jackson motherf*cker sunglasses, scanning the crowd for signs of trouble.

*There was even a rare Doug Racine sighting! Although he stayed well in the background and didn’t say a word during the ceremony.

And there was none. Afterward, he even cracked a smile as he talked the new James Bond film with VPR’s John Dillon. (Aww, John, I had you pegged for an art-house subtitle kind of guy.)

But I digress, I certainly do.  

Shumlin and friends, putting the “dig” in “dignitary.”

Shumlin exuded an air of confidence bordering on smugness, calling the post-Irene effort to remake the mental health care system “an example of the best of Vermont,” claiming that “we all made the right decision together” (which would come as a surprise to the medical professionals who still have real concerns with his plan), and promising “the best community-based mental health system in America” (gee, I thought it was the first and only one).

The confidence came less from the groundbreaking itself than from the financial package he was able to unveil. Vermont will get at least $30 million combined from FEMA and its insurance carrier. The precise mix remains to be seen, as Shumlin explained:

The first payment has to come from the insurer. When we get money from FEMA, it’s a 90-10 match, so we have to pay 10%. So our first job is to wrangle as much out of the insurance company as we can get; then we turn to the FEMA dollars.

The remaining cost, somewhere between $12.5 and $15 million, will come from state coffers — but last year, $18 million was set aside in the capital budget for the purpose, so no new funds will be needed.

The news might get even better. As you may recall, there’s been a dispute between the state and FEMA on whether to build structures that are equivalent to what existed pre-Irene or better, more flood-resistant, and more expensive replacements. Apparently, Sen. Patrick Leahy has added language to the Hurricane Sandy aid bill that would loosen FEMA’s rules on this point. If the bill becomes law, Vermont is likely to get even more FEMA dollars.  

Although it’s clear that Shumlin is getting less money from FEMA than he’d hoped, he said he was “thrilled” with the outcome, and allowed himself to take a victory lap at his critics’ expense:

I have taken some heat over the last months for pushing ahead with this project without knowing exactly how the dollars would flow. I take responsibility for that judgment.

Which is an easy thing to say when you’ve cemented your funding, but yes, he has managed to back up his self-confidence with results.

The Governor also claimed  that if you look at it in a certain way, federal funds will more than pay the entire cost of the new system:

When the federal government decertified our state hospital a decade ago, Vermont lost $10 million every single year in federal reimbursements. We anticipate that when this system comes on line, we will once again enjoy the federal reimbursements. Put in very rough math, when we get those reimbursements back, we will pay for our entire new system with federal dollars in roughly a year and a half.

Eh, yes and no. Shumlin is doing what he’s consistently done: compare his new system to the much-detested Vermont State Hospital. The choice wasn’t between the old VSH and a shiny new system; it was between a new State Hospital and a decentralized system. Truth is, if a new central hospital had been built, it would also have been sunny, inviting, and state-of-the-art, and would also have re-qualified Vermont for that $10 million per year.

There are still a few i’s to dot and t’s to cross, but whether or not you agree with the Governor’s plan, yesterday was a milestone in the Irene recovery effort. FEMA funds will begin to flow within 30 days. Shumlin expects a final decision on funding for the rest of the Waterbury office complex in “a month to a month and a half.”  

A few days ago we reported news of a negative financial outlook for Entergy Nuclear, and its possible implications for future operation of Vermont Yankee. There was much more on the subject in Sunday’s edition of the Mitchell Family Organ, available in print at your local library or online here for subscribers.

Reporter Susan Smallheer interviewed UBS analyst Julien Dumoulin-Smith, who issued the report on Entergy’s tight finances, and he added some important information.

First, the reason for Entergy’s cash crunch is that the newly-abundant supply of natural gas is hitting the nuclear industry hard.  

Natural gas is clearly overtaking coal, and nuclear is the next wave of potential victims.

This trend has the greatest impact on smaller reactors like Vermont Yankee.

Next question: If Dumoulin-Smith’s analysis is correct, and Entergy could actually ease its cash crunch by closing VY, why is it fighting so hard to keep the plant open? He provides two reasons, neither of which have anything to do with providing safe, clean, reliable blah blah blah, or any commitment to the great people of Vermont.  

First and foremost, Entergy is looking beyond VY to a pending battle over the Indian Point reactor in New York state. “It’s really all about Indian Point,” he told Smallheer, who elaborated:

New York environmental officials have been battling with Entergy over the environmental effects of Indian Point’s water withdrawals from the Hudson River, with state officials saying cooling towers were needed to mitigate the environmental impacts of such large water withdrawals.

Apparently Entergy fears that if Vermont wins its bid to close Yankee, it could set a precedent in the battle with New York over Indian Point. Dumoulin-Smith said “the nuclear industry as a whole [is] closely watching the Vermont regulatory fight.”

Nice to know that Yankee is nothing more than a pawn in a game that doesn’t involve Vermont at all.

Second, Dumoulin-Smith says that even though operating Yankee is a financial drain, it’s not as big a drain as closing and decommissioning would be.

One more little nine-figure detail: his analysis didn’t take into account the impending necessity of replacing Vermont Yankee’s aging condenser, which carries a $100-million price tag. And makes continuing operation even more of a drag on Entergy’s bottom line.

But with far bigger stakes at risk, Entergy is willing to go all-out in its legal battle with Vermont, even through its actual interest in VY is limited or nonexistent.

Oh by the way, the official response? Entergy spokesflack Robert Williams fired up his Bumph-O-Mat, which barfed out the following:

“Our nuclear units are important sources of clean, reliable power, and we remain fully focused on the safe operation of the plants,” he said. “As a matter of policy, Entergy does not comment on the financial performance of individual plants.”

And he refused to answer any of Smallheer’s questions, natch. Nice to have such a public-spirited corporation Managing Our Nuclear Future.  

And finally, here’s the fuller version of the Monday presser.

Today’s topic was fighting recidivism. There were two announcements; highlights first, details after the jump.  

— A new DUI Treatment Court. The idea is to give repeat DUI offenders an opportunity to clean up their act with disciplined, consistent oversight by the courts. Bobby Sand is leaving his post as Windsor County State’s Attorney to head up the effort, which will be paid for by a three-year federal grant totaling roughly $300,000.

— A merger of the Community High School of Vermont and Vermont Correctional Industries. The aim is to give inmates real, marketable job skills by the time they leave prison.

There won’t be a formal news conference tomorrow, but Shumlin will be attending a dedication ceremony for the mental hospital in Berlin. And today he hinted at major announcements about the mental health care system he’ll be making tomorrow. The likely focus of those announcements became clear late today, when VTDigger reported that FEMA is set to announce its funding for new psychiatric facilities to replace the shuttered Vermont State Hospital.

On an unrelated subject, former top Shumlin aide Alex MacLean has a new job. She’s signing on with Bill Stenger’s big Northeast Kingdom deal. Actual job title: Project Manager for the Northeast Kingdom Economic Development Initiative.

In English? “I will be helping Bill and his team with investor relations and investor recruitment as well as the communications efforts around the various projects.”

As for why she’s taking the job: “I’m from the Northeast Kingdom, born and raised there, and I’m just thrilled to have the opportunity to help create jobs and revitalize that region.”

Her close ties with Shumlin won’t hurt either.  

More on recidivism after the jump.  

When Bobby Sand stepped to the microphone, he immediately cemented himself as my favorite State’s Attorney by quoting the great science fiction writer WIlliam Gibson: “The future is already here; it’s just not very evenly distributed.”

In this case, a reference to anti-DUI initiatives launched in Sand’s bailiwick. He’ll now be charged with even distribution throughout the state.

The new thing is usually called “DUI Treatment Courts,” although as Sand noted, it’s not actually a new court; it’s a new docket within the established court system. But adopting the common terminology, the DUI court is aimed at getting repeat offenders to clean up their act:

These people are convicted and sentenced. The bargain the judge strikes with the defendant is, after serving any mandatory jail required by the Legislature, and after or during a period of license suspension, the judge says, ‘If you are willing as a condition of your probation, to come back in front of me on a regular basis, every two weeks, and to account for the progress you have made in treatment, and to be held accountable if there has been a relapse, then you have earned the benefit of staying in the community.”

There is something about returning on a regular basis to the court to speak to a judge that makes a significant difference in helping people recover from an addiction.

Other states that have launched DUI courts have found that they actually save money on law enforcement — $2-4 for every dollar spent — by successfully rehabbing those repeat offenders.

As for the educational/training initiative, Corrections Commissioner Andrew Pallito noted that efforts to reduce prison populations in the past decade have resulted in a more than 50% decline in inmates 21 or younger. That means the remaining inmates are older and more difficult to rehabilitate.

But those are exactly the inmates that will need to be helped, if Corrections is to meet Legislative mandates to reduce recidivism over the next five years.

The solution, they hope: A merger of inmate education and job-training efforts designed to create a “seamless program” from sentencing to release. “Corrections education has been two different silos,” said WIlhelmina Picard, Director of Corrections Education. In the future, she said, inmates

…will leave with a professional portfolio, and they will have a transitional instructor to help them bridge the gap, whether it’s to an educational agency or to a workplace position.

The goal is to improve service while reducing program costs. It all sounded good at the presser; the tough part will be making it work, especially when dealing with the state’s most chronic and intransigent offenders.  

The title is an homage to a classic “Beyond the Fringe” skit, which is not only fall-down funny, it’s also a pretty good depiction of your typical anti-wind demo.

Something’s been bugging me for quite a while now, but it hadn’t quite crystallized until I read the following paragraph a few days ago in a VTDigger story about a three-year moratorium on new utility-scale wind projects in Vermont, proposed by Senators Joe Benning and Bob Hartwell:

The proposal comes one year after the Senate shot down a similar draft legislation Benning sponsored, which called for a two-year moratorium on projects 2.2 megawatts or greater. Since then, opposition to wind projects has grown, with a Montpelier demonstration in autumn drawing nearly 200 protestors.

The key phrase: “Since then, opposition to wind projects has grown.”

Really?

By what objective measure? What facts, what pattern supports that conclusion?

The only proof cited is a single demonstration that drew “nearly 200.” Is that really sufficient proof of the assertion? Seems pretty damn thin to me, even if VTDigger did wrongly choose to characterize that gathering as a “throng.”

I see no evidence of an anti-wind groundswell. What I see is a small group of very determined activists who’ve leveraged a great deal of media coverage. Let’s look at the available data.  

In May of 2012, a Castleton Polling Institute survey showed 70% support for wind power, 17% opposition, and 13% not sure.

During the 2012 campaign, Governor Shumlin made no secret of his support for wind energy. Randy Brock tried to capitalize on anti-wind sentiment, while anti-wind activist Annette Smith launched an ill-fated campaign for Governor — first as a Prog, then as a write-in. But in spite of Digger’s claim of growing opposition, the anti-wind crowd had no discernible effect on the November election. Smith drew no more than a few hundred votes, and Shumiln sailed to an easy victory.

It was, to return to that Beyond the Fringe skit, “not quite the conflagration we were banking on.”

None of this proves that anti-wind sentiment has stayed pretty much the same — a concern of a small minority — but it certainly runs counter to VTDigger’s assertion that opposition to wind power is on the rise.

I’ve been an observer of politics since the late 1960s, and I have never, ever seen a protest movement get so much coverage out of such small crowds. The notorious “throng” of 200 was, by far, the largest anti-wind gathering in Vermont. The others have attracted somewhere between a handful and a few dozen.

And every single one of them has attracted generous media coverage. As has every permit filing, every groundbreaking, every compliant of excessive noise or other alleged problems, every court case or threatened lawsuit, and (most absurd of all) every transportation of turbine parts toward construction sites.

So why has the media given so much coverage to such a small movement? I have a few theories.

— Many of the protests are picturesque. A demonstration on a mountain or in the forest makes pretty pictures and good video for the 6:00 news. Much better than the same number of people carrying signs in front of the Statehouse (yawn).

— There’s something Vermonty about the whole thing. Salts of the earth, sons of the Green Mountains, garbed in flannel, fleece, or down, seeking to preserve smallness against the assault of the Big. It speaks to some of our most cherished myths about ourselves and our state.

Yes, I said “myths.”

— Some reporters are favorably inclined to the anti-wind cause. I’ve heard this, off the record, from some media folks. It’s sometimes fairly obvious in their coverage (“throng,” indeed). And I’m sure the ill-advised prosecution of Chris Braithwaite didn’t exactly endear wind developers to the state’s journalists.

— Some media outlets tilt to the right, and the right tends to be anti-wind. Not because they’re environmentalists, but because (1) they’re pro-business and anti-climate change, (2) a lot of rich people own rural property and don’t want turbines messing up their views, and (3) they’ll use any handy issue to slam the Shumlin Administration.

— Monkey see, monkey do. If some media outlets are covering anti-wind protests, then others will follow. And actually, that’s the only objectively provable momentum in the anti-wind movement: the year 2012 saw an increase in coverage of anti-wind protests.

It also didn’t help that most Vermont environmental groups have treated anti-wind protests as John Kerry did the Swift Boaters in 2004 — ignoring rather than confronting. I was glad to see several of them (including VPIRG, VNRC, the Conservation Law Foundation, and the Vermont Sierra Club) come out in opposition to the wind moratorium last week, and I wonder where the hell they were all of last year. They should have been out front with their own positions and their own scientific information.

Another thing I’d like to see happen: I’d love it if the media actually examined the anti-wind movement. How many people are really involved? Where do anti-wind organizations like Energize Vermont get their money? They aren’t legally required to report their donations, donors, membership numbers, spending or budgets, and they haven’t volunteered to do so. Also, it’d be good if some enterprising reporter took a look at the “scientific studies” used by the anti-wind folks. Some anti-wind activists, and some alleged scientists, get their support from the fossil fuel industry.

And one final factor in the media’s overestimation of the anti-wind folks: The Comments section. Whenever anyone posts a story about wind energy, there’s a flurry of comments — many of them from the same small number of anti-wind hardliners. Online comments, however, are no reflection whatsoever of a website’s overall readership. The vast majority of online readers never post a comment, and most never even read the comments. But when a reporter or a media outlet sees a long string of comments, it tends to affect their thinking. In this case, makes them overestimate the size of the anti-wind movement.

Which is, I say again, small. And only as influential as their outsized reputation allows them to be.  

Here is my belated update on Shumlin’s Friday news conference. Toplines: New transparency measures make it much easier to get information about the workings of state government; Shumlin calls for greater public access to records of criminal cases and investigations; and he endorses Secretary of State Condos’ proposals for tougher reporting requirements on campaign spending and fundraising.

Governor Shumlin’s third news conference in three days was the shortest and most boring of them all. The subject matter was important, mind you — but there was no sizzle, as there was on Wednesday with the Jim Deeghan case or on Thursday with Shumlin playing rope-a-dope on gun control.

Nope, instead we were talking government transparency, and two new features of the State of Vermont website designed to fulfill Shumlin’s goal of maximum “accountability and transparency.”  Vermont has a poor record in this regard; in its most recent ranking, USPIRG had Vermont tied for 38th place (with Tennessee) for transparency in government spending, with a grade of D minus and a score of 51 on a scale of 1-100.

The Administration used USPIRG’s standards as its benchmark, which strikes me as a very good thing.

One of the new features is “The Governor’s Dashboard.” It allows people to find the latest information on Shumlin’s top priorities and goals, and measurables on progress made (or not). The second is “Spotlight,” which is a one-stop destination for details on the state’s finances — budget, spending, revenues, grants and contracts, and audit reports.

The information on Dashboard and Spotlight isn’t new, but these web features are designed to provide one-stop access, without having to visit numerous state websites or pore through stacks of documents.

Both websites look well-designed and very useful. The real test will be keeping them accurate and up-to-date.

After the jump: more on transparency, increasing access to criminal records, and tougher campaign finance reporting requirements.

Shumlin said that increasing transparency was one of his top goals from day one, and he expressed some disappointment with the pace of the effort.

Change in state government takes time,. And one of the frustrations I’ve had as Governor is not only to develop and implement the right policies, but to have the entire family of state government change with the times.

He added that the Legislature wasn’t as helpful as he’d hoped.

When I came in, I said, let’s sit down with the Legislature, and we’ll go over all the 200 and whatever it is exemptions to public records, figure out which ones make sense and which ones don’t. And that never really got the results I was hoping for.

Criminal records: Shumlin would also like to expand public access to records of criminal cases and investigations. The Governor’s legal counsel, Sarah London, explained the impetus for Shumlin’s proposal:

Part of our concern are a number of recent decisions by the Vermont Supreme Court where the court concluded that the existing language creates a categorial and indefinite exemption from the Public Records Act. That’s what this will most directly change.

Shumlin would like the Legislature to adopt existing federal standards for releasing such information, which state that “records of criminal investigation can only be withheld if disclosure would result in specific harm.”

There’s another advantage to accepting the federal guidelines: “There’s a large body of record around the federal guidelines that will clarify when something should be disclosed and when it can’t be disclosed.”

Campaign finance reporting: The Governor endorsed proposals from Secretary of State Jim Condos for increasing transparency in campaign finance reporting. Condos has called for increased frequency of campaign finance filings, meaningful penalties for failing to file on time, new technology to allow campaigns and organizations to file online, and new disclosure requirements for Super PACs such as Vermonters First.  

Shumlin called Condos’ proposals a meaningful response to the US Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which blocks states from imposing limits on campaign-related spending.

We can’t fix the damage of Citizens United until it’s overturned or until we pass a constitutional amendment, which I hope will happen quickly. But what we can do is make sure we have much quicker, more transparent knowledge of what is happening, who is giving to whom, and how it’s all falling out.

…As candidates, we’re often in the awkward position of wishing that information was more transparent but not having the mechanism, the technology at the Secretary of State’s office to get the information out. We sit there literally with pen in hand, filling out the forms. So we have a technology challenge that the Secretary of State is aware of, and I’m glad that he’s aware of it and that he’s committed to cleaning it up.

I was heartened by Shumlin’s endorsement of Condos’ agenda, especially given the Legislature’s complete failure to act on campaign finance reform in 2012. I was even more heartened by Shumlin’s acknowledgment that the reforms will carry a price tag. He promised to work with Condos and the Legislature to find money for the necessary technology.

All in all, it was a positive presser. And while it’s more fun to write about stuff that goes sideways, I’m glad to see Shumlin making such a seemingly strong commitment to openness in government. My sense is that he is honestly committed to the issue, and he deserves some credit for the progress made so far.  

Hey, remember what the Governor said after the Newtown shootings? The stuff about Vermont’s unique gun culture?

Vermont’s strong, safe and relatively unregulated gun culture might contribute to a broader, “50-state” solution to curb firearms violence, Gov. Peter Shumlin says.

…”We’re not a state that glorifies weapons of war that are of little practical use to a civilian.”

Well, er, the folks down in Bennington may beg to differ.

A local teacher surrendered a Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle to police Monday, shortly after raising public safety concerns through videos and statements he posted on the Internet.

Steven Davis, a beloved science and math teacher at Mount Anthony Union High School for the past nine years, has been hospitalized since Monday following a mental health evaluation, according to Bennington Police Chief Paul Doucette.

The Bennington Banner website reports that Davis had been distraught over a pending divorce, and had posted “videos and e-mails to coworkers accusing school officials of negligence and illegal activities.” And there’s this:

On Monday morning, Davis began posting videos that criticized school administrators, the teachers union and co-workers, among a slew of other topics. Davis also sent a school-wide email saying he would “remove the union and all of the teachers who are negatively affecting the children in this town.”

Davis’ Bushmaster AR-15 is the same weapon used in the Newtown shootings. He also owned “two high-capacity magazines and 500 rounds of ammunition,” which have been confiscated by police.  

Neighbors asked police to do a welfare check on Davis after seeing him carry the rifle to his vehicle Sunday evening. Davis then voluntarily surrendered the gun, telling police he put it in the trunk of his car in order to bring it to a storage unit he recently rented.

“This weapon was in a case. It has a trigger lock installed, but it was alarming to find two, 30-round, high-capacity magazines loaded,” Doucette said.

Maybe Davis was telling the truth: that he was simply transporting his loaded assault weapon to a storage locker. Why he’d store it loaded, I have no idea. On the other hand, he said some pretty alarming things in a voluntary interview with police, according to Chief Doucette:

“He never came out and threatened the teachers in any way, he just said it was time for change. But, when he started going on about reading CIA manuals and he talked about looking into military training and things like that, I became alarmed. My staff became even more alarmed and we became concerned about the safety of the teachers at the school and the safety of the community.”

Based on that, we may have just had a close brush with a Newtown tragedy of our own.

And even if we haven’t, this incident clearly illustrates the impossibility of keeping guns away from “crazy people,” as Shumlin has suggested. Davis had no history of mental illness; on the contrary, he was well-liked and respected.

And it shows that Vermont’s unique gun culture is no guarantee that it won’t happen here.