Overshadowed by the hype that has accompanied CNN’s airing of the pro-nuke PR gloss, “Pandora’s Promise,” is a little known but extremely consequential change to safeguards built into the permit process for nuclear energy plants.

It has always been required of those seeking a license to build and operate a nuclear power plant, that they have in place a “quality assurance program” from the very start, when core-borings and critical assesments are made in order to evaluate the suitability of a planned siting.  

As Arnie Gundersen explains in the most recent video from Fairewinds Associates, the NRC has reinterpreted its own rules so that the quality assurance program is not required to be in place until the completed application passes over the NRC’s desk, well after sensitive findings should have been collected and evaluated.  

This came to light in recent hearings held in Monroe, Michigan by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, at which Arnie gave testimony against the NRC, bringing the reinterpretation to light for the first time.  The NRC appears to have instituted the changes without advising that they had done so.

This represents a complete flip-flop on the part of the NRC from its earlier position.

A less than scrupulous applicant would have ample opportunity under the new interpretation to pass off poor or incomplete preliminary work as satisfactorily completed without any required verification.

Considering how many siting errors have been discovered in operating reactors built under the old rules, it is truly frightening to think what the consequences might be if a quality assurance program is no longer required until late in the licensing process.

Perhaps even more concerning is the impact this reinterpretation has on “whistleblowers;” those folks upon whom we must depend  to tell us when mistakes have been made so that they can be addressed in a timely manner. By moving the point at which the plant operator is regarded as an “applicant” to the end of the process, the NRC has effectively removed whistleblower protections for workers involved in the preliminary work to obtain a permit to operate.  

Removing whistleblower protections for plant workers in the preliminary development of a nuclear facility, exposes the general population to unacceptable risk.

NRC Strips Whistleblower Protection from Fairewinds Energy Education on Vimeo.

And as for “Pandora’s Promise?”  Writing in the Guardian,  John Quiggin says the arguments are just  “old news” that don’t stand-up under scrutiny.  He very effectively points to the most obvious fly in the ointment: a complete failure of the economics of atomic energy.  It’s really worth a read.

Following an exchange in an earlier thread, I listened to an interview with James Hansen.  I was curious to hear what I thought would be his own original arguments.  Instead, what came out of his mouth was a stream of talking points; the same old tired talking points that we’ve heard so often from industry shills: there’s a shiny new generation of nukes just around the corner that will solve all of our problems; and we can’t get off of coal except through nukes.

Yeah; well those shiny new nukes are far from “just around the corner;” and they are equally far from being without their own unique set of byproduct issues.  And the choice between coal and nukes is a false one, which completely overlooks the role that improved efficiency can and must play in meeting our energy needs.

In closing, here’s an intriguing  little something to chew on…and it’s all about the efficiency opportunities that are available just in terms of LED lighting.  Enjoy!

Guess I overestimated the stupidity of the Vermont Republican Party. In a rare flash of insight, the party faithful elected David Sunderland over John MacGovern for state party chair. Sunderland was the choice of Lt. Gov. Phil Scott, and MacGovern was the three-time loser whose last campaign is still in debt. But MacGoo had the backing of outgoing state party chair Jack Lindley, who’d rather leave the VTGOP in the hands of an incompetent than accede, even slightly, to Scott and his merry band of putative moderates. In the end, the tally was Sunderland 48, MacGoo 30.

On the other hand, Lindley’s right-hand-man (and anti-Scott attack dog) Mark Snelling was re-elected as party treasurer, edging out Deb Bucknam by two votes. Maybe in his second term, Snelling can figure out how to bring a little money into the cobwebbed coffers of the VTGOP. It should make for some interesting leadership meetings, at least.

VPR’s John Dillon interprets the Sunderland vote as a change of course:

Vermont Republicans chose to follow a moderate path with the election Saturday of former Rutland Town representative David Sunderland as party chairman.

Yeah, well, I wouldn’t go that far. Sunderland had a decidedly conservative voting record in his five-year stint as a State Rep from Rutland Town — a fact given the absolute minimum coverage by the state’s political media. And his speech to the delegates included a heapin’ helpin’ of Republican red meat:

“As your chair I will work diligently to bring our varying views together on the core issues that define our party: an affordable Vermont that works for our small businesses and families, efficient government that is by your side and not on your back, an education system that reins in spending and gives parents a seat at the decision table, and a health care system that enhances the doctor-patient relationship instead of destroying it.”

Let’s take those one at a time, shall we? “Affordable Vermont” is VTGOP-speak for “lower taxes.” “Efficient government” means “cut spending.”

“An education that… gives parents a seat at the decision table” is a curious statement. Parents already have a seat at the table. It’s called VOTING FOR SCHOOL BOARD and voting for school budgets. Besides that, there are few institutions more open to constituent input than public schools. Most teachers and administrators would love it if parents were more involved in their kids’ education.

Sunderland topped it off with a slam at health care reform, which he says is “destroying” the doctor-patient relationship. Hell, I thought the insurance companies had been doing a bang-up job of that under the old system.

So maybe Sunderland will be a better organizer than Lindley, but I don’t see much change in policy. I certainly don’t see any moderation. Methinks Dillon leaped to the shallowest, most obvious interpretation of events. And given that he’s now VPR’s chief journalist, that’s pretty damn sad.  

Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz did much better in his report for Seven Days’ Off Message blog:

A divided and politically marginalized Vermont Republican Party on Saturday chose a new leader who pledged to turn the state GOP’s attentions away from internal conflict and toward winning elections.

… “I think today what we can take away from this is that the Vermont Republican Party has voted for change – a change in direction, a change in tone, and we plan on going forward,” Sunderland said after the election.

The “change in direction” is less about policy than about turning “away from internal conflict.” (Which, again, will be a neat trick with Mark Snelling on the leadership team.) As for “change in tone,” that’s been said a lot lately by the Scott camp. It appears to mean putting a Phil Scott smiley face on doctrinaire conservatism, voicing criticism with more politeness and less overt vitriol, and blowing more quietly on the usual dog whistles.

I mean, how much did the VTGOP really change today? They’ve got a new party chair who, politically, isn’t much distinguishable from the old one. (If anyone out there can show me evidence of Sunderland’s “moderation,” I’d love to see it.) They’ve got the same old treasurer. And in the other two top offices, the winning candidates ran with the backing of both sides: Brady Toensing (of the conservative attack-dog law firm of DeGenova and Toensing) and Jackie Barnett.

Take a look at this, and tell me if there’s any real change in the VTGOP:

“We need to keep our disagreements inside our family,” said national committeeman Jay Shepard. “Our enemy is not in this room. As we sit here, the Democrats are planning another step in taking away our freedoms, our liberties and our way of life. Those are the people that are the real threat … We need to know who the real enemy is. I’ll tell you right now, the worst Republican I know is a much better person than Barack Obama.”

Yeah, that’s the angry face behind the smiley mask. The Democrats are supposedly stealing our freedoms and our way of life. They are “the real threat,” “the real enemy.” The worst Republican (Darrell Issa? Ted Cruz? Paul Broun? Michelle Bachmann? …no wait, Shepard doesn’t mean literally “worst,” he means “most moderate.” Never mind) is “a much better person than Barack Obama”?

Hey, John Dillon: could you explain exactly how this is a new, “moderate path”?

The guns are a-blazing on this eve of the Vermont Republican Party convention. And the #1 target, by far, is Lt. Gov. Phil Scott, head of the “moderate” wing of the party. The shooters are prominent conservatives who would rather see a teeny-tiny but ideologically pure VTGOP than, oh, win some elections.

Up first is Darcie “Hack” Johnston, who never met an election she couldn’t lose. Yesterday on her Facebook page, she posted an excerpt from something Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz wrote — in September of 2012. The occasion was Scott’s appearance before Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility, in which the Lt. Gov. allowed as to how the GOP ought to “give the Affordable Care Act a chance to work.”

For Johnston, Vermont’s staunchest opponent of health care reform, this is treasonous apostasy. And her apparent purpose in dredging up this bit of old news is to fan the flames of anti-Obamacare hatred and train them on Scott and his cadre. (She put the cherry on this little shit sundae by referring to Scott as “Lite Gov.” Never thought I’d see the Hack stealing lines from Peter Freyne. Of course, the Late Lamented was referring to Brian Dubie, but who’s counting?)

Johnston’s post drew several responses from like-minded conservatives, and a pair of rebukes from Republican lawmakers Joe Benning and Patti Komline. Here’s Benning:

Darcie: it baffles me wondering what it was you thought you would accomplish with this posting. Only hours before we are meeting in an attempt to unite as a party, you’ve taken a year old quote, on a divisive subject we all know to be quite complicated, to disparage the only state-wide office holder we have left. This posting merely invites further fracture, leaving us all in a toxic environment. It forces us to explain ourselves (once again) to those who might otherwise be looking for a party that presents itself with a positive image espousing basic constitutional principles. With all due respect, please do us all a favor and take down this post.

Somehow I don’t think Johnston will comply.

And now, on to an acorn that fell really, really far from the tree: Mark Snelling.  The failed candidate for Lieutenant Governor and treasurer of a nearly-bankrupt political party (heck of a resume, Snelly) rowed himself up Shit Creek in a really weird attempt to disparage Phil Scott and David Sunderland (the “moderate” candidate for VTGOP Chair) — by publicly accusing Bruce Lisman of secretly plotting a run for Governor.

For which he later issued an abject apology. And after issuing said apology, saying he still believed the stuff he’d just apologized for. Yeesh.  

This comes to us from Peter Hirschfeld at the Vermont Press Bureau, and is available on its non-paywalled website.

Snelling’s original claim:

“The reality is that within the last eight weeks, Bruce Lisman has considered running for governor,” Snelling said Thursday afternoon. “He’s had a budget put in front of him, saying that it would cost $3.2 million to run for governor. And he sat through a three to four-hour meeting and thought about it and looked at all sides of it and decided against it.”

Now, here’s some tortured logic. Snelling reasoned that if Lisman ran for Governor, he’d run as an independent — and he would try to convince the VTGOP to stay out of the race, to give him a clear shot at Gov. Shumlin. And in Snelling’s mind, if Sunderland were chair, he’d be more likely to accede to Lisman’s hypothetical request. Plus, Snelling pointed to Scott’s “lack of public enthusiasm” for Randy Brock as a sign that Scott might throw his support to Lisman.

All of this, remember, is purely an invention of Mark Snelling’s overactive political imagination. And it got him in hot water with the Lisman crowd, forcing this apology emailed to Lisman Thursday night — only a couple of hours after Snelling’s original comment:

Bruce,

I owe you an apology.

I was doing an interview and I was trying to make a point about future elections and the dynamics of the various parties and how they can interact along with possible third parties.

To make my point, I spoke about your organization and made statements about which I have no first-hand knowledge.

It was a discussion where CFV was a tangent and I should not have gone down that tangent.

It was a mistake and I apologize.

Mark

Within hours of sending his apology, Snelling told Hirschfeld that he stands by his claim that Lisman harbors gubernatorial ambitions:

“I fully believe that what I said was true,” Snelling said this morning.

Way to apologize there, Snelly.

These hapless sallies by Snelly and the Hack are good examples of their approach to party-building and reaching out to independent and undecided voters: they’d rather be ideologically pure than broaden the VTGOP. They’d rather lose with conservative principles intact than win under a slightly more moderate banner.

And they sure as hell would rather cling desperately to the little bit of power they have now, than risk losing it for the sake of their own party’s fortunes.

If this crowd wins the convention — and I expect that they will — then the VTGOP is in for a long, dark night of electoral irrelevance.

And if Phil Scott wins the day, he’ll inherit a party with no base and few resources, and he will have alienated the conservative base that’s been driving this damn bus.  

Forget about Keystone XL; there’s an imminent oil threat closer to Vermont. Tar sands oil, the dirtiest oil on the planet, may be on its way through the Northeast Kingdom. And you have the power and opportunity to do something about it.

Corporations and lobbying firms representing the oil industry have given strong indication that they want to reverse the flow of an aging crude oil pipeline in New England, the Portland Montreal Pipeline, which currently crosses Vermont and New Hampshire and sends crude oil west, from Maine to Canada. The pipeline reversal would mean that tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada would travel east through Vermont to Portland, Maine for export. As the extremely close vote in South Portland, Maine, on Nov. 5th shows, there is an ever growing community-led effort to resist tar sands oil.

Last year, 29 towns in Vermont passed town meeting resolutions opposing the use of this pipeline for tar sands oil transport. Building on the success of last year, people throughout Vermont, particularly in towns in the Northeast Kingdom, are now gathering signatures to put the pipeline issue on their town’s ballot on Town Meeting Day, March 2014. The ballot question would register people’s opposition to the pipeline reversal.

By signing a petition in your area, you are voicing your opposition to the Portland Montreal Pipeline being used for tar sands oil. By helping to spearhead a petition-signing drive in your town, you can do even more to help stop this dangerous threat.

Here are upcoming ways to plug into the Keep VT Tar Sands Free Campaign:

Vermont Community Access Media: Channel 15 &17

Critical Mass TV

Sunday, Nov. 10 @ 8pm

Tar Sands Field Organizer Jade Walker will be interviewed.

350 Vermont’s Town Resolutions committee meeting:

Tuesday, Nov. 12, 2013, 6 – 8 pm

Cobleigh Library in Lyndonville  

and

Wednesday Nov. 20, 6 – 8 pm

Newport Community Justice Center  

55 Seymour Lane (which is just off of Main St. beside the State Office Building)

Contact ncjc@kingdomjustice.org for more info.

350 Vermont’s Tar Sands Education/Outreach Committee meeting:

Nov. 14 from 10 am – 12 pm

Pratt Library, Goddard College campus, Plainfield

Teach-in Presentation:

Nov. 13 from 7 – 9pm

St. John the Baptist Episcopal Church, Hardwick

A presentation about Tar Sands oil, the Portland Montreal Pipeline, and how it will effect the Northeast Kingdom. We will learn about community defense efforts across the continent and what we can do here.

Movie and Presentation:

Wed., November 20, 6:30 pm – 8:30 pm

Fletcher Free Library, Burlington

Two short Tar Sands films: “Tar Sands Action” by Josh Fox and “Healing Walks” by Zakee Kuduro and #KeystoneFail Presentations.

The pipeline reversal offers no benefit to the people of Vermont – only risk. No jobs or revenue will be created. And in the event of a spill, we’ll be the ones left paying the bill.

Please contact Jade Walker at 350 Vermont — jade@350VT.org — to start an action group in your town or to get involved today in the fight to keep Vermont tar sands free.

The internal battle for the booby prize that is the Vermont Republican Party has reached truly insane levels. It’s kind of like two dumpster-divers fighting over a moldy bucket of KFC.

Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz has a lot of detail on the Off Message blog, and I’ve heard much of the same stuff from my own sources.  

Summing up the situation: The VTGOP may get stuck with the thoroughly inadequate John MacGovern as party chair because Mark Snelling and Phil Scott can’t stand each other.

The tangled story, per Heintz:

Both Snelling and Scott were trying to put together “compromise” slates for the party offices that will be filled on Saturday. Snelling, who was publicly certain that Jack Lindley would run for re-election as party chair, was privately constructing a ticket that didn’t include Angry Jack.

According to Heintz, Scott’s team included former State Rep. David Sunderland, a staunch conservative, for chair; attorney Brady Toensing (of the infamous conservative attack-dog law firm of DeGenova and Toensing) as vice chair; current interim party chair Deb Bucknam (also a staunch conservative) for Treasurer, and Jackie Barnett of Barre for secretary.

The Snelling/Taliban entry included Toensing as chairman, Sunderland as vice chair, and yep, Snelling remaining as party treasurer.

In his Wednesday evening email withdrawing from the race, Angry Jack split the difference, endorsing Toensing for vice chair — not chair — plus Barnett for secretary, Snelling for treasurer, and John MacGovern for chair. Why Toensing for vice chair, I’m not sure; the only rationale I can think of is that Lindley couldn’t stomach endorsing Sunderland for any office because he had Scott’s backing.

That seems awfully ugly, but feel free to tell me if I’m wrong.

But that’s not the worst part.  

The worst part is the crucial role played by the Scott/Snelling acrimony, which apparently dates from the 2010 Republican primary for Lieutenant Governor, in which Scott beat Snelling by a 56-44 margin. (Ouch.)

As Snelling tells it to Heintz, the hard feelings are all on Scott’s side:

According to Snelling, negotiations broke down, in part, because Scott’s faction insisted upon Snelling leaving the party’s leadership. Scott defeated Snelling in the 2010 Republican primary for lieutenant governor.

“It just appeared to me that Phil Scott was being vengeful about, ‘Hey, we ran against each other in a primary three years ago,'” Snelling says.

My sources put most of the onus on Snelling. And that makes the most sense, when you think about it: who would you expect to bear a grudge, the guy who won or the guy who lost? The guy who’s widely popular, or the one who utterly failed in his attempt to cash in on a renowned family name?

I’ve been told that the two competing sides could have agreed on a compromise ticket with Toensing at the top and Sunderland as number two, except for the office of Treasurer. The Snelling folks insisted on, yep, Mark Snelling. The Scott camp wanted somebody not named Mark Snelling. The compromise talks collapsed over that issue, leaving Lindley and Company with one option: backing the hapless MacGovern.

Maybe the most important political aspect of all this, is what it says about Phil Scott’s version of moderation. He was apparently okay with Brady Toensing as chair, he’s backing Deb Bucknam for a top office, and his own choice for chair, Sunderland, has a very conservative voting record.

So again I ask, exactly how is Phil Scott a moderate?  

One more note down the ballot. Remember Jeff Bartley, the failing-upward guy who harbored hopes of being the next party chair but couldn’t beat out John MacGovern? He’s pursuing a consolation prize, the currently dormant office of Chair of Chairs, which coordinates activity among the 14 County chairs.

But poor ol’ Bartleby appears to be all by his lonesome. Lindley has endorsed Kevin Beal, chair of the Washington County GOP (and director of alumni relations at Norwich University). From Beal’s statement of candidacy:

One of the most important opportunities which we as fellow County Chairs can work on throughout the next year is to improve communication between the state party leadership and county committees, and improve opportunities for shared, mutually beneficial ventures, like fundraisers and events. We must also work together to ensure all of our Vermont towns have organized.

With that said, I do not have an agenda. This position is an important one in that it is the foremost opportunity for the county chairs to have direct input in the highest-level decision-making for our party. The individual representing the county chairs should have a strong reputation-one who seeks to be above reproach, but not beyond scrutiny.

He’s making the right noises for a low-profile, party-building job. More so than the fail-prone Bartley. Not that any Republican will ask for my opinion.

Anyhow, should be a fun Saturday at the Elks Club. Maybe the VTGOP can buy a few scratch-off tickets while they’re there. Might be their best hope for raising a little money.  

Huh boy. Only three days before the Vermont Republican Party’s convention on Saturday, current chair “Angry Jack” Lindley is pulling out of the race because he’s still recovering from a grave illness. He was hospitalized for a month and only returned home last week, but he kept the door open as long as he could:

As recently as Wednesday morning, political allies including Mark Snelling, the GOP’s treasurer, said Lindley was planning on trying to retain his chairmanship at the party’s state convention Saturday.

“Yes, it’s my expectation that he’s going to run,” Snelling said Wednesday morning.

Methinks he waited so long because the conservative wing of the VTGOP is completely bereft of good leadership. An ailing Jack Lindley, who’s done little to rebuild the party, was their best option.

The proof? Lindley is throwing his support to John MacGovern.

Oh, God. It’s really hard to believe that a “major” political party would be reduced to this. MacGovern ran a no-hope campaign against Bernie Sanders in 2012 on a Tea Party-style platform: railing against government spending, taxes, and regulation, and in favor of Paul Ryan’s entitlement cuts. His campaign was a fundraising flop, and remains mired in debt.

Before his run for Senate, MacGovern’s Vermont political career included two losing effortts at the State Senate, finishing at the back of the pack in the 2008 and 2010 Windham County senate races.

This is the guy who’s now leading the charge for Vermont conservatives. Incredible.

After the jump: the whole conservative clown car.

And the rest of the conservative slate isn’t a whole lot better. (This part of the story is only available on the Times Argus/Herald websites, behind a paywall.) Lindley endorsed the slate in a Wednesday evening email announcing his withdrawal:

“I strongly support and endorse John MacGovern for Chairman of the Vermont Republican Party and I’m asking you to do me the personal favor of supporting John MacGovern for Chair, Brady Toensing for Vice Chair, Jackie Barnett for Secretary, Mark Snelling for Treasurer, Wendy Wilton for At Large, Randy Brock for At Large and Kevin Beal for Vice Chair of Chairs,” Lindley wrote. “This team will lead the Vermont Republican Party forward on the principles we all believe.”

Nice to see the VTGOP is such a strong believer in recycling. Mark Snelling, Treasurer who can’t raise any money? Randy Brock? Brady Toensing, member of a Birther-friendly DC law firm? WENDY WILTON?????

This little Neocon Clown Car will be opposed by a “moderate” slate fomented by Lt. Gov. Phil Scott and his allies, and headed by former State Representative David Sunderland of Rutland Town. Sunderland is no liberal; he had a solidly conservative voting record in the Legislature. But apparently being endorsed by Phil Scott was too much for the hard-core right wing. They’d rather elect John Freaking MacGovern than support a guy with Scott’s backing.

Anyone else see a problem here?

That Saturday meeting at the Montpelier Elks Club should be something. You’d think that Vermont Republicans would take a look at the track record of MacGovern et al, and opt for a new direction.

Somehow, I don’t think that’ll happen. I think the VTGOP true believers are too angry, too poisoned by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, to adopt a broader vision. And too many of the would-be “moderates” seem to have withdrawn from the scene. Do you see anyone from the Douglas Administration — which, while pretty conservative, at least had a strong sense of realpolitik — taking an active role? Neale Lunderville? Betsy Bishop? Jason Gibbs?

Brian Dubie?

I don’t see any outcome of Saturday’s meeting that would strengthen the VTGOP. If the conservatives keep the helm, they’ll limit themselves to a hard-core 35-40% of the vote. If the “moderates” win, the conservatives will sit on their hands and Phil Scott will have to rebuild from the ground up. (With a chairman who really isn’t a moderate.)

For Vermont Republicans, it’s a lose-lose situation.  

Word is out that BPD fatally shot a man in the NNE today for “wielding a shovel and not listening to the demands and requests of the officers”.  

Last time BPD opened fire on a citizen was 1997 according to VPR.    

St. Albans City was recently given the title of “This Old House’s 2013 Best Old House Neighborhood, Northeast.”  But do we really deserve this distinction?

Last night, the City Council refused to participate any further in efforts to reclaim the Owl Club/Smith House, sitting some 200 years on the corner of its historic downtown campus,  from demolition and redevelopment into a cheap clapboard office building that involves major reconfiguration of quiet Maiden Lane in order to accommodate fifteen additional parking spaces.

The City Council thinks it has done “enough;” and from one perspective, it certainly has.  

The Council was responsible for appointing all members of the Development Review Board, who gave their approval for the destruction of the house, which is on the National Register of Historic Properties, despite the fact that the developers of the property had not provided all of the essential documentation that is required under City statutes.

In fact, they allowed the developer’s own engineer, who was engaged specifically to build the office building on that site, to render the opinion that the historic building could not be saved.

Not only did this engineering firm have a conspicuous conflict of interest motivating them to render such an opinion; but they did not even provide the detailed information that is required by law, concerning the costs associated with restoring the building.

But that is not where contamination of the process ends.  The Chairman of the Development Review Board, Meghan Manahan, is the first cousin of the Connor brothers, who were the applicants  seeking a permit from the DRB.

Her brother, former mayor Marty Manahan is the downtown redevelopment “tzar.”  

The ease with which the Connor brothers slid through the permit process must be questioned.

We will persist with our efforts to have the permit vacated; but in light of our limited personal resources, and with no help from the City, our prospects are diminished.  

Make no mistake, environmental court is theoretically accessible to all citizens; but, like elected office, the reality is that it is only as accessible as one has the funds with which to access it.

If the Connors prevail in the appeal process, not only will the historic home of John Smith and J. Gregory Smith be demolished and replaced with an ugly block of clapboard offices; but the entire length of Maiden Lane from the library to Congress Street will be reconfigured for diagonal parking in front of that office building, adding fifteen spaces to that tiny one block lane way.

All of the gently sloping greenspace that currently fronts the historic home will be eliminated to allow for additional parking; and our children and grandchildren will have to compete with diagonal parking as they make their way to and from the library on their bikes and skateboards.

I just thought my neighbors deserve to know that it is our neighborhood…the 2013 Best Old House Neighborhood…that is at stake here.

Congratulations to Vermont and especially Mark Larson, the Commissioner of the Department of Vermont Health Access.

NPR ran a story this morning on how much money various state governments are paying to private contractors to run their health insurance call centers, focusing on a company from Connecticut called Maximus. While it's clear that these contracts are worth millions to Maximus, in most states it's impossible to find any information about how much Maximus is getting paid.

Not Vermont, though. Vermont is singled out for its transparency.

NPR reports: 

Vermont's exchange handled things differently. It has posted on the internet a complete, unredacted copy of its contract with Maximus. The document spells out everything from how long a call can be on hold to how quickly it must be answered.

 Around here we don't hesitate to point it out when our state government does something wrong, so this is an opportunity to point out that in this area Vermont has gotten transparency right.

Here we go again.

Did you catch the bit in the Freeps today, straight from the AP, that four scientists have sent letters to environmental groups and politicians in support of nuclear energy?

With five domestic nuclear facilities performing their swan songs and the actual cost of nuclear energy finally coming to light, it was just a matter of time before the nuclear industry would harness a few gullible climate scientists to the masts of its sinking ship.

Who exactly comprises this band of brothers?  I had a look on the Google.

Kerry Emanuel is a conservative climatologist, whose stand on climate change, back in 2012, so riled his Republican friends that even his wife received threatening email following his video-taped appearance at a climate change conference for Republicans in New Hampshire.  He is the director of MIT’s Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate Program.

Mr. Emanuel is to be praised for acknowledging the human face of Climate Change; but it can’t be overlooked that, as a conservative with Republican ties, his bias in favor of the nuclear industry is not surprising.  Add to that the fact that MIT is deeply in bed with that industry and has a nuclear research facility with compelling economic reasons to favor a nuclear future.  We have seen MIT’s participation in pro-nuclear public relations efforts (and in questionable research on the effects of radiation) repeatedly over the past couple of years.

James Hansen, a former top NASA scientist, bases his support for nuclear energy as the solution to the climate crisis on new and unproven nuclear technology that comes with a host of its own environmental and security issues.

Ken Caldeira, of the Carnegie Institute has a background in software and a Ph.D in Atmospheric Sciences; and the fourth climate scientist to sign the letter, Tom Wigley, is associated with the University of Adelaide in Australia.

As far as I could determine, none of them has any background in nuclear engineering.

The challenges are already coming from environmental activists who insist that nuclear energy is as wrong for the planet as carbon-based energy production; and two wrongs won’t make a right:

“These guys need to go to Fukushima,” said long-time anti-nuclear activist Harvey Wasserman…”It’s astonishing anyone could advocate MORE nukes while there are 1331 hot fuel rods 100 feet in the air over Unit Four, three melted cores at points unknown, millions of gallons of contaminated water pouring into the oceans, and so much more.”

You may have also noted that CNN just happens to be promoting its pro-nuclear documentary, “Pandora’s Promise,” this week.  It’s an interesting coincidence, I think.

It’s curious that CNN, which flatters itself to be a legitimate arbiter of news, has chosen to step into an advocacy role on behalf of what is unquestionably a very controversial industry in the aftermath of Fukushima.

This is just another example of the manner in which the network has tracked steadily toward a less and less legitimate claim on being a news organization since its promising early years.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Just to round things out with a pitch for the “good guys”…There is a fundraiser Wednesday evening for Vermont’s own standard bearer in the fight for a nuclear-free future.  From 4:30 until 10:00 PM Fairewinds

Associates will be the beneficiary of 10% of total sales at Bluebird BBQ at 37 Riverside Avenue in Burlington. Reservations are recommended: (802) 448-3070.  

So, if you can be in Burlington Wednesday night, please make an effort to get to Bluebird because the fundraiser will only take effect if they can get twenty-five people there, and Fairewinds deserves all the help we can give them!