Both the Free Press and the Times Argus carried the same story about Douglas’ position on energy efficiency this morning, but the headline writers at both papers create a pro-Douglas spin that gives the exact wrong impression to headline-only readers.

The gist of the story is that in the pending Public Service Board proceeding to decide on the funding level for Efficiency Vermont, while the Douglas Administration has submitted a proposal for a modes increase in funding, the administration’s own experts have determined that a much greater increase would be cost-justified, and if all cost-effective efficiency investments were made we could achieve dramatic reductions in the rate of electricity use.

Here’s a quote from the story: The department’s consultant, GDS Associates Inc., said it would be cost-effective to increase the efficiency budget to $35 million a year. During the next 10 years, it said, that investment would save Vermonters $964 million off their electric bills — a three-to-one return on investment.

Under this scenario, GDS said, Vermont’s electrical usage would be reduced by about 19 percent over what would otherwise be its projected 2015 consumption, GDS said.

In other words, by arguing for an increase that is smaller than would be economically justified, the Douglas Administration is walking away from hundreds of millions of dollars in savings.

But what to the headlines say?

Times Argus:
Douglas calls for more energy efficiency

Free Press:
Douglas aides call for more efficiency.

Sure, there is a technical sense in which those two headlines tell the truth, but the impression they give is not only false, it is contradicted by the story the headlines introduce.

I know the reporter doesn’t write the headline, but it wouldn’t be a bad thing for the person who actually does write the headline to understand what the story says, would it?

Have you bought gas lately? Or gotten an electric bill? Or shopped for next year’s fuel oil?

One of the things that Douglas’ supporters like to say is that he supports energy efficiency in general, and Efficiency Vermont in particular. While it is true that he did speak when Efficiency Vermont won an award from the Kennedy School a couple of years ago, the following press release from VPIRG documents what Douglas’ opposition to efficiency programs is costing Vermonters:

Nearly $1 billion dollars worth of savings are on the table according to an updated Department of Public Service study related to energy efficiency, and the Administration is walking away .

Montpelier, Vermont –  Environmental and consumer advocacy groups blasted Governor Douglas for missing an opportunity, according to his own administration’s analysis, to save Vermonters money and reduce the state’s electricity needs.  An updated report done by the Department of Public Service identified nearly $1 billion dollars worth of savings for Vermonters if just under $35 million dollars is invested every year in energy efficiency.  But, in a new filing sent to the public service board today the Governor supports only a nominal increase of 4.7 million in the 2007 efficiency budget leaving behind millions in energy savings.  Doubling the budget is required to reach the $35 million dollar investment and they have gone less than half the way.

Ten months of detailed analysis done by the Department of  Public Service  concluded that Vermont could reduce its electricity demand by 19.4% over the next decade and reduce Vermonter’s electric bills by investing more in energy efficiency.  “The State is walking away from efficiency and affordable energy,” said Sandra Levine, attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF).  “Efficiency is the lowest cost and cleanest energy resource.  The State should be doing all it can to use more efficiency and avoid more expensive power and more pollution.  Vermont should not leave half the savings still on the table,” she added.

Over the next decade Vermont will loose 2/3 of its power contracts as Vermont Yankee’s license expires and the current stable power contracts with Hydro Quebec end.  With this reality in mind the state legislature in 2005 instructed the Public Service Board to invest in efficiency measures that would lower Vermonter’s electric bills and reduce the amount of power the state’s utilities have to buy from the volatile and expensive power market in New England.

“First the Governor is opposed to wind power, then the Governor suggests that we need to be considering a coal or natural gas plant for Vermont and now the Governor is walking away from reducing our electricity demand when his own department’s analysis says it could save Vermonters nearly $1 billion dollars.  We could create a clean energy future but not if we continue down the path we are on right now,” said James Moore, clean energy advocate for the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG).

Ultimately the Public Service Board will decide how much money will be invested in efficiency.  Levine commented that while disappointed with the Governors recommendation, “We are confident that the public service board will follow the law and set a more aggressive budget that will save all Vermonters from higher electric bills.” 

###

You can contrast this with Scudder Parker, the Democratic candidate, who has a well-thought-out energy plan that grows out of his years of experience overseeing energy efficiency programs in Vermont.

We have a choice this year, and we can’t afford to stay with Douglas.

Say you’re a 14-year-old girl and you’re pregnant because your father raped you. And say that you live in a state that requires parental notification. Under a bill passed by the Senate yesterday it would be a federal crime for a supportive friend or family member to help you get the abortion you need, even if your life is at stake. That’s right, even in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother, a majority of the House and Senate have voted to allow parents, no matter how culpable or abusive they may be, to prevent pregnant minors from obtaining the health care they need.

It shouldn’t even be surprising that this bill is called the Child Custody Protection Act; their approach to naming legislation has long since become so cynical that it barely raises an eyebrow.

What I want to know is this: what to Tarrant and Rainville think of this legislation?

It seems that Richie Tarrant has two campaign themes: vacuous, soft-focus puff pieces; and the straight-on pander. We got an example of the pander yesterday when he held a press event to highlight his opposition to freedom of speech.

I’m talking about his support for the flag-burning amendment. As the story points out, for some time now Tarrant has been passing out American flags (how many of them wind up on the ground after parades, I wonder?) attached to Tarrant ads, but apparently that hasn’t gotten him enough attention so he held a press conference yesterday to make the point.

As you know, the flag-burning amendment was narrowly defeated last month, so we can’t afford to have one of Vermont’s Senate seats switch from principled opposition to Tarrant’s unprincipled pandering on this issue.

I was recently in Virginia for a wedding and I had a conversation with my brother-in-law about what I thought of Howard Dean. He was asking me, and he didn’t express much surprise at my statement that I couldn’t stand him when he was governor because he was too conservative, even a DINO–my brother-in-law already thinks I’m a left-wing wacko.

No, what he was interested in was what I thought of Dean as national party chair, and the fifty-state strategy in particular.

I told him I’m in favor of it. I really do think that we need to reach out to people who should be our allies all across the country. In fact, we can’t afford not to. I told him how I really appreciated the principle behind Dean’s statement that we should be the party of the guy with the Confederate flag bumper-sticker on his pickup truck: not because we can support or even tolerate such expressions of racism, but because I think most of us agree that these expressions of racism are partly the result of feelings of frustration and marginalization that have come from economic inequality, lack of opportunity, and lack of access to real power.

My brother-in-law thinks this is a pipe dream. His reaction is that the South is gone for us, and there is no way we’re ever going to get it back.

A story in today’s Post demonstrates why that’s not true. The story’s called “Rethinking Red States”, and it shows what a big difference can come from even small realignments. Look at four Southern states: Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, and North Carolina. As recently as 1994 the Democratic Party had the majority of the Senate and House delegations of these four states, and now we don’t. If we could get back to where we were in 1994 we would have a majority in the Senate and we would make steps toward taking back the House.

Are we going to do this?

We don’t know yet. Still, it’s important to realize that we don’t need to take over Mississippi, Alabama, and the other states of the Deep South–really dominate the region, the way the Party used to–to improve our position on the national scene. We can get some of these seats back, and we need to do just that.

What does this tell us in Vermont?

Look around the state. In Washington County, for instance, we have several legislative races in which the Republicans aren’t fielding a candidate; there are one or two where the Republicans have a candidate and we don’t. I’m sure the same thing is true across the state, even if there are some write-ins to fill the slots.

My point is that we have to do more than win our local races. Even in uncontested House districts we have important Senate elections to win. Even in safe Senate districts we’re running statewide elections for Governor, Lite-Gov, Senate, Congress, and the other statewide offices. What we need to do in Vermont is the same thing Dean has shown us we have to do nationwide. It’s not a fifty-state campaign in Vermont, it’s a fourteen-county campaign.

Hard work wins elections. The R’s haven’t forgotten that, and we sure can’t afford to.

I haven’t seen it yet, but it’s now playing at the Savoy in beautiful downtown Montpelier. Watch this movie and you won’t be wondering about global warming.

One warning, though: I guarantee you’ll be pissed that Bush and his supporters on the Supreme Court stole the election in 2000.

Cross-posted from Rational Resistance

I’ll summarize this but it’s worth reading the whole story in Slate today.

It’s a bit of a small point from today’s Supreme Court decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. It hinges on a standard tool for determining legislative intent. In interpreting a statute, if the court finds that the language of the statute is clear, the clear language of the statute controls. The question, though, is what to do if the language is ambiguous. One of the standard tools is legislative history, which encompasses a range of information, including statements made during debate on the legislation. It makes sense, right? If we want to know what Congress meant when they passed a law, see what they were saying about it when they passed it.

In this case, a big issue was the correct interpretation of the Detainee Treatment Act, which was passed last December. Late in December, after the bill was passed, when nobody else was around, John Kyl (R-Tex.) and Lindsey Graham (R- S.C.) inserted a phony dialogue in the Congressional Record, making it look as though it was a colloquy they held during floor debate on the bill. Then, they used the language they inserted into the record as the basis for an amicus curiae brief they filed in the Supreme Court to argue for their preferred interpretation.

Too bad for them, though.

Either Justice Stevens or his clerk was too smart for them, discovered this, and actually called them out on it. Here’s what he said in a footnote of his opinion: “While statements attributed to the final bill’s two other sponsors, Senators Graham and Kyl, arguably contradict Senator Levin’s contention that the final version of the Act preserved jurisdiction over pending habeas cases … those statements appear to have been inserted in the Congressional Record after the Senate debate.”

You certainly wouldn’t expect anything better than this from Kyl, but Graham likes to put on a show of being more moderate, presumably grooming himself for an eventual presidential run. What this shows, though, is that he is devoid of integrity and cannot be trusted.

A few days ago I posted a diary praising Pat Leahy for his opposition to the flag burning amendment. In fairness, here’s what Jeffords said in the floor:

Sen. Jeffords’ Floor Statement on Flag Burning

Floor Statement of Senator Jim Jeffords, I-Vt.
On Constitutional Amendment to Ban Flag Burning

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to a constitutional amendment that would ban flag burning and other acts of desecration.

As I said during the recent debate on the Federal Marriage Amendment, I am very troubled by the priorities put forth by the Senate Majority. Our domestic programs are facing serious budget cuts; millions of Americans are without health insurance; gas prices are out of control — while our nation’s reliance on foreign oil shows no sign of easing up. And we still have no strategy for the war in Iraq.

However, the Senate Leadership has chosen to spend a portion of our limited days in session to bring up a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. Once again, we seem to be searching for a solution in need of a problem, and I am afraid the reason we spend time on this topic is only for political gain.

As a veteran with 30 years in the United States Navy and United States Naval Reserve, I know the pride that members of the Armed Forces feel when they see our flag, wherever they may be in the world. I share the great respect that Vermonters and Americans have for this symbol. I personally detest the notion that anyone would choose to burn the flag as a form of self‑expression.

Members of the military put their lives on the line every day to defend the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. It is disrespectful of these sacrifices to desecrate the flag. However, in my opinion, our commitment to free speech must be strong enough to protect the rights of those who express unpopular ideas, or who choose such a distasteful means of expression. This concept is at the core of what we stand for as Americans.

Mr. President, I have given this constitutional amendment a great deal of thought. I must continue to oppose this amendment because I do not think that we should amend the Bill of Rights unless our basic values as a nation are seriously threatened. In my view, a few incidents of flag burning, as upsetting as they may be, do not meet this high standard.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Oh yes–there is nothing on Tarrant’s site about his position on this issue.

Scudder released his energy plan today, stressing four key points:

Vermont Energy Empowerment Principles
• RELIABILITY: All Vermonters should have access to secure and reliable heat,
electricity and transportation, even in the face of external problems such as
market changes, supply disruptions or political instability abroad.
• SECURITY: All Vermonters (individuals, communities and businesses) should
be able to stay warm, keep the lights on, and get from one place to another
without having to sacrifice other basic needs.
• RESPONSIBILITY: Vermonters have the right to an energy supply that reflects
concern for economic strength, the environment and their communities.
• LEADERSHIP: Vermonters want to be innovators and leaders. They deserve a
Governor who will take the necessary actions to ensure affordable, reliable
and responsible energy that promotes a sound State economy.

This, of course, is way ahead of Douglas, who talks a good game but can barely be bothered to support Efficiency Vermont, which has been a model for efficient programs across the country. As Scudder put it in his remarks today, sure, we see Douglas at the ribbon-cuttings, but where is he when real vision is needed? Nowhere.

The timing of this is great.

For one thing, with legislation that was passed this year we have a chance to develop an energy affordability plan for low-income Vermonters. This legislation calls on the Public Service Board to “design a proposed electricity affordability program in the form of draft legislation.  The program shall be developed with the aid of an electricity affordability program collaborative.”

To top that off, low-income energy guru Roger Colton has released his annual study on the home energy affordability gap. For people who are used to thinking of Vermont as a forward-thinking, progressive place, this study should be a real wake-up call, because in home energy affordability , whether you define it in terms of the percentage of people at or below 185% of poverty who can afford their energy bills, or the percentage of income that a family at 50% of the poverty level spends on energy (69.3%), Vermont is dead last! 51 out of 50 states. That’s right–you name your favorite state to compare Vermont to and they’re better than we are on this life-and-death issue.

Here is the PDF of the Vermont-specific data, and I urge you to look at it. It’s hard to ignore the fact that we need to take strong action or we might as well go back to the days of freezing the old people for the winter.

Cross-posted from Rational Resistance

Once again the R’s are pushing a flag-burning amendment. I don’t buy that this is motivated in any way by a sincere adherence to American values. If you value America, and what it stands for, you value freedom. These guys just don’t.

Pat Leahy, our senator, has it just right:

Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, argued that burning the American flag was precisely the kind of speech the First Amendment is meant to protect.

“I would hope that all of us in this chamber champion liberty … but when I hear some talk about cutting back on our First Amendment rights, you can see why people would wonder,” Leahy said.

Democrats are not the only ones against the amendment. It also does not have the support of the Senate’s No 2. Republican, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

“I think the First Amendment has served us well for over 200 years. I don’t think it needs to be altered,” McConnell said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”