( – promoted by Sue Prent)

Over the last month, there’s been considerable attention given to the growth in renewable energy throughout the United States.  First, in January Philip Bump at Grist.com reported that nearly half the new capacity generated in 2012 was renewable. And on Tuesday, he reported the incredible result that 100% of the electric capacity added in December was renewable.

So I thought I’d take a closer look at the growth in renewable energy, as the debate over industrial wind in VT is heating up with opponents calling for a three year moratorium (See here and here, among others.)  

Particularly, let’s look at what exactly was accomplished in 2012.  I plotted total operating generating capacity from January 2012 through January 2013 to highlight the growth in renewable energy.

As you can see, 2012 was a banner year for wind and solar, with yearly increases of 33% and 123%, respectively.  Overall, the contribution to the total operating capacity for these four energy sources increased from 5.5% in January 2012 to 7.1% in January 2013.  That’s real growth, folks.

The growth in renewable energy was caused by two factors.  First, technological improvements have driven down the price of solar and wind.  But with the price still being perceived as too high to trigger economies of scale, state and federal governments have made policy decisions to offer substantial tax credits, thus stimulating wide scale demand.  As the graph clearly shows, the demand for renewable energy has kicked in and renewable energy is becoming a real component of the U.S. energy infrastructure.  

To be certain, renewable energy is not going to replace coal, natural gas, or nuclear anytime in the near future.  But every increase in the use of renewal energy is a decrease in carbon entering the atmosphere, and for me, with three small children and the future I want to give them, that’s a step in the right direction.  And that is why the call to place a moratorium on wind power is misguided and foolish.

Governor Shumlin made quite a bit of news at his February 14 news conference. There was his actual policy announcement: a new effort to allow high-school students to take college courses (and earn up to a full year’s worth of credits), and open up new opportunities for workplace experience through internships and apprenticeships.

Then there were all the questions about the more controversial elements of his budget plan: slashing the state’s share of the Earned Income Tax Credit; imposing a lifetime cap on Reach Up benefits; his newfound insistence that his reform ideas for education, tax, and welfare are all part of one big indissoluble package; and his depiction of tax hikes and benefit reductions as “compassionate” while opponents of his vision are the “cruel” ones. Quite a few verbal missteps and overstatements, frankly.

Lots of big issues swirling around the Governor’s office and the Legislature’s consideration of his budget. Major questions about the veracity of Shumlin’s assertions, and whether his plan is big enough or sufficiently funded to achieve his goals without screwing the working poor.

So, what did the Vermont political media choose to focus on?

The goddamned airplane.

The state’s 50-year-old airplane — and the Transportation Department’s proposal to replace it — was brought up at the news conference. And Shumlin, bless his li’l ol’ pea-pickin’ heart, rolled out one of his “Vermont boy” anecdotes. And, as was the case with his naked bird-feeder rescue and his disavowal of “Gucci beer,” this one backfired on him.  

He told us that he’d flown the ancient Cessna a few times; and once, in midair, the door flew open. Our Fearless Leader, of course, didn’t panic — he simply pulled the door shut. Hahaha.

What he didn’t realize is that his cutesy anecdote opened the door to the question, “How often has he flown in the plane, and why?”

The first answer came three days later, when Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz wasted some space on the Seven Days politics blog “Off Message” by revealing — horrors! — Shumlin used the plane five times. FIVE TIMES! And on one occasion, he took the plane to a campaign fundraiser and failed to reimburse the state. The cost: $65.80.

Quite possibly the tiniest “scandal” in history.

And, naturally, it became the story du jour in the political media. The second lemming over the cliff was the Freeploid’s Terri Hallenbeck, who wrote a lengthy piece on February 18 whose title referred to “Shumlin’s high-flying,” which seems a bit over-the-top for FIVE PLANE TRIPS compared to God knows how many times the Governor has traversed the state by car. And again, only one short hop of one of those trips was campaign-related. And cost $65.80.  

WGOP — er, WCAX — has been all over the state-plane brouhaha, filing at least five stories in the past two weeks — about the AOT’s budget request for a new plane, the shocking revelation of the unreimbursed $65.80, the subsequent reimbursement, and the removal of the plane from the budget.

By now, the story has gained enough momentum that every other news outlet gets that instinctive urge to follow the herd right over the cliff.

This morning, my tastefully slim Times Argus brought me yet another exploration of this pointless kerfuffle. I sincerely hope Peter “Marathon Man” Hirschfeld was ordered by his editors to pursue the story; I’d like to think better of his own journalistic instincts.

Hirschfeld’s story gave VTGOP chair Angry Jack Lindley a chance to blow off some steam:

“Vermonters need to be concerned when they see the governor begin to use his office to access state resources and use them for his personal benefit,” Lindley added in a phone interview. “It’s a scary mentality to see taking hold.”

Oh yeah, Jack. One day it’s a short ride in an old airplane. Next day, FASCISM.

At least Hirschfeld included the only real bit of actual news in this entire waste of our precious journalistic resources: whether the state actually needs a new plane and, more to the point, whether it needs an expensive one. A point also addressed by GMD diarist BP, and by VTDigger’s Anne Galloway.

How expensive? $117,600 per year on a ten-year lease-to-own deal — a total of $1.2 million.

Now, the state has given reasonable justification for having an airplane. But does it need a million-dollar plane? A plane with a flying range of 1500 miles? Seems excessive for a state that’s about 200 miles from top to bottom.

But still, the primary focus of all this coverage was that one unreimbursed campaign trip worth $65.80. We got story after story about that, at a time when the Legislature is up to its neck in big important issues. Every f’n day, there are multiple stories worth telling at the Statehouse. Many of them go untold. There are huge questions about Gov. Shumlin’s budget, and for the most part, nobody is trying to answer them.

But those are complicated, and a gubernatorial plane ride is easy.

Bit of advice. Next time you’re looking for some direction — in the Arctic tundra or under the Golden Dome — don’t follow the lemmings.  

Ok, there’s yahoo news blurb up I just scanned by that says Bill says that Hillary is definitely running in 2016.  Thank you, Bill.  Hope this is true.  I’ll leave it to one of you Dems to put the story up.  All’s I can say is that it’s past time a woman took over and got us all straightened out.  I’m going to clean my room now.

It is a well-known fact that I am a vocal opponent of big box retail in Vermont.  

When I sat down to my e-mail this morning, it was bristling with links sent by helpful friends to a single feature piece by James Howard Kunstler.  

Recounting the arc of “irrational exuberance” that described the big box store era in America, Mr. Kunstler proclaims that era to be finally at an end, having reduced the nation significantly from an economic, environmental and social standpoint.

America made itself hostage to bargain shopping and then committed suicide. Here we find another axiom of human affairs at work: People get what they deserve, not what they expect. Life is tragic…In a now permanently contracting economy the big box model fails spectacularly. Every element of economic reality is now poised to squash them.

Well said, Mr. Kunstler; and the realities of big box failure have begun to turn off Wall Street, as well.

But with JLD Properties making ground-breaking noises for Walmart, in both St. Albans and Derby,  Vermont seems poised to serve as the final resting place of the big box retail dinosaur.  Could we really be that stupid?

Could Walmart really be that stupid?  

I suppose they could be; after all, since the 1970’s Walmart’s overarching game-plan was to become its only competitor.  Like a cancer it grew uncontrollably, sapping life-giving energy from everything around it: other businesses, suppliers, labor and customers; until, inevitably, its success has turned on itself and is in the process of consuming the host.

For his part, I have long suspected that JL Davis operates on the principle of self-fulfilling prophesy. You know… ” If I build it, they will come.”  “They” being Walmart.

Walmart is probably not averse to lending its brand to a loyal accolade of its expansion, such as Davis has certainly been over the years.  Thus equipped, Davis can make his pitch to St. Albans or Derby  with some legitimacy even before Walmart is truly on the hook.

I suspect Walmart is never truly “on the hook” for properties it does not own, until the developer achieves that certain “sweet spot” on behalf of Walmart, where the retail giant gets to operate on precisely the terms it currently finds most profitable.  If that is never achieved, all bets are off.

It is in light of those suspicions that I received the news that, in St. Albans, Mr. Davis is quietly requesting that his permit be amended to eliminate 115 parking places.  He is also asking that the parking space requirement be reduced from five spaces per 1,000-sq. ft. of retail space to four.  At five spaces per 1,000 sq. ft., those 115 parking places equal roughly 23,000 sq. ft. of retail space.  At four spaces per, they equals almost 30,000 sq.ft. of retail space!

It is reasonable to wonder, what exactly is going on there?

I’ll leave you with that tantalizing question and a piece of advice to the good folks of Derby: Run.  

Run just as fast as you can to avoid being struck by the economic comet that is coming to wipe-out Walmart.

 

One week after his inauspicious Statehouse debut, professional oilman Larry Wilson was back under the golden dome today, trying to convince the House Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources Committee that his company doesn’t need any more regulation, thank you very much. Photo: Wilson explains his position to an apparently skeptical Rep. Kathryn Webb (D-Shelburne).

Wilson is President and CEO of the Portland-Montreal Pipeline Corporation; his pipeline carries imported oil from Portland to Montreal for sale in Canadian markets. On the way, it traverses the Northeast Kingdom. Last Tuesday, he told the committee that his company has no current plans to reverse the flow of the pipeline in order to carry tar-sands oil from western Canada to Portland for export — but, he quickly added, his company fervently hopes to develop such a plan.

(A development I reported the day it happened, one week ago. Congratulations to VPR’s John Dillon for reporting on it yesterday — a mere six days after my posting. Dillon’s report apparently prompted Channel 5’s Stewart Ledbetter and the Associated Press’ Dave Gram to attend today’s hearing. Because, y’know, it’s not really news until someone in the “real media” covers it.)

The subject of the hearing was, again, House Bill 27, which would explicitly require Act 250 review for any substantial alteration in an existing oil pipeline. If the bill passes, Wilson’s company would have to go through the permitting process as if from scratch.

Wilson arrived at the hearing with a full posse at his back, a Southern drawl oozing from his mouth, and a satchel of patent medicines at his side. Well, not really, but he sure had plenty of bromides on offer. Wall-to-wall assurances that the pipeline industry is safe as houses, that transporting thick, sludgy, toxic tar-sands oil is a walk in the park, and that if there’s ever a problem, well, Ma’am, you can count on your friends in the oil industry to clean it up right quick.

And he repeated last week’s message: he has every hope of reversing his pipeline and carrying western oil to Portland by way of the NEK.  

“We do not have an active project to reverse the pipeline. We hope to have a project to use the pipeline.  Moving western Canadian heavy crude* is one possibility. We are confident we can transport heavy crude very safely and efficiently. …We are aggressively pursuing projects to use our resources.”

*WIlson never once uttered the words “tar sands.” To him, tar sands oil is simply heavy crude, nothing more, no worries, move right along, folks.

His tone was consistently polite and measured. At least it was until after his testimony was put on hold so the committee could hear from Jim Murphy of the National Wildlife Federation. (The hearing got started late, and Murphy was on a tight schedule.)

Murphy spoke in favor of the bill. He noted that although the pipeline industry has a good safety record, “Pipelines do fail, and when they fail, they fail catastrophically.” He pointed to the 2010 disaster in southwest Michigan, in which a pipeline carrying tar-sands oil failed and “it took 17 hours before the operator realized there was a spill.” More than a million gallons of heavy, gucky oil spilled into the Kalamazoo River. The river and surrounding waters are still tainted by the oil.

Murphy then spoke about the broader implications of tar-sands oil, which he called “dirtier and more carbon-intensive than any other fossil fuel.” He gave his opinion that Act 250 already applies to a pipeline reversal, but he endorsed H.27 as adding clarity to the issue.

After Murphy’s departure, Wilson returned to the stand and allowed his contempt for environmentalism to show through his veneer of Southern charm. Wilson asserted that Murphy “had several things wrong,” and accused “the environmental movement” of deliberately stretching the truth and “throwing anything at business to delay” new projects.

The rest of his testimony featured some thinly veiled threats. He said H.27 “would impede our ability to access open markets” by imposing “undue regulation.” He then added:

“This bill sends a strong signal to the Canadian government that ‘We (Vermonters) don’t want their oil,’ and it sends a message to companies like ours that ‘We (Vermonters) don’t want your business.’

“If this opportunity does not present itself to us, we will have to determine the best use of our pipeline. It’s been a wonderful run since 1941, and we’d like it to continue.”

In other words, be nice to us or we’ll take our pipeline away.

Gee, Larry, if that’s how you feel, I think we’re more than prepared to tell you exactly where you can stick your pipeline and then reverse the flow.  

One week after his inauspicious Statehouse debut, professional oilman Larry Wilson was back under the golden dome today, trying to convince the House Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources Committee that his company doesn’t need any more regulation, thank you very much. Photo: Wilson explains his position to an apparently skeptical Rep. Kathryn Webb (D-Shelburne).

Wilson is President and CEO of the Portland-Montreal Pipeline Corporation; his pipeline carries imported oil from Portland to Montreal for sale in Canadian markets. On the way, it traverses the Northeast Kingdom. Last Tuesday, he told the committee that his company has no current plans to reverse the flow of the pipeline in order to carry tar-sands oil from western Canada to Portland for export — but, he quickly added, his company fervently hopes to develop such a plan.

(A development I reported the day it happened, one week ago. Congratulations to VPR’s John Dillon for reporting on it yesterday — a mere six days after my posting. Dillon’s report apparently prompted Channel 5’s Stewart Ledbetter and the Associated Press’ Dave Gram to attend today’s hearing. Because, y’know, it’s not really news until someone in the “real media” covers it.)

The subject of the hearing was, again, House Bill 27, which would explicitly require Act 250 review for any substantial alteration in an existing oil pipeline. If the bill passes, Wilson’s company would have to go through the permitting process as if from scratch.

Wilson arrived at the hearing with a full posse at his back, a Southern drawl oozing from his mouth, and a satchel of patent medicines at his side. Well, not really, but he sure had plenty of bromides on offer. Wall-to-wall assurances that the pipeline industry is safe as houses, that transporting thick, sludgy, toxic tar-sands oil is a walk in the park, and that if there’s ever a problem, well, Ma’am, you can count on your friends in the oil industry to clean it up right quick.

And he repeated last week’s message: he has every hope of reversing his pipeline and carrying western oil to Portland by way of the NEK.  

“We do not have an active project to reverse the pipeline. We hope to have a project to use the pipeline.  Moving western Canadian heavy crude* is one possibility. We are confident we can transport heavy crude very safely and efficiently. …We are aggressively pursuing projects to use our resources.”

*WIlson never once uttered the words “tar sands.” To him, tar sands oil is simply heavy crude, nothing more, no worries, move right along, folks.

His tone was consistently polite and measured. At least it was until after his testimony was put on hold so the committee could hear from Jim Murphy of the National Wildlife Federation. (The hearing got started late, and Murphy was on a tight schedule.)

Murphy spoke in favor of the bill. He noted that although the pipeline industry has a good safety record, “Pipelines do fail, and when they fail, they fail catastrophically.” He pointed to the 2010 disaster in southwest Michigan, in which a pipeline carrying tar-sands oil failed and “it took 17 hours before the operator realized there was a spill.” More than a million gallons of heavy, gucky oil spilled into the Kalamazoo River. The river and surrounding waters are still tainted by the oil.

Murphy then spoke about the broader implications of tar-sands oil, which he called “dirtier and more carbon-intensive than any other fossil fuel.” He gave his opinion that Act 250 already applies to a pipeline reversal, but he endorsed H.27 as adding clarity to the issue.

After Murphy’s departure, Wilson returned to the stand and allowed his contempt for environmentalism to show through his veneer of Southern charm. Wilson asserted that Murphy “had several things wrong,” and accused “the environmental movement” of deliberately stretching the truth and “throwing anything at business to delay” new projects.

The rest of his testimony featured some thinly veiled threats. He said H.27 “would impede our ability to access open markets” by imposing “undue regulation.” He then added:

“This bill sends a strong signal to the Canadian government that ‘We (Vermonters) don’t want their oil,’ and it sends a message to companies like ours that ‘We (Vermonters) don’t want your business.’

“If this opportunity does not present itself to us, we will have to determine the best use of our pipeline. It’s been a wonderful run since 1941, and we’d like it to continue.”

In other words, be nice to us or we’ll take our pipeline away.

Gee, Larry, if that’s how you feel, I think we’re more than prepared to tell you exactly where you can stick your pipeline and then reverse the flow.  

One week after his inauspicious Statehouse debut, professional oilman Larry Wilson was back under the golden dome today, trying to convince the House Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources Committee that his company doesn’t need any more regulation, thank you very much. Photo: Wilson explains his position to an apparently skeptical Rep. Kathryn Webb (D-Shelburne).

Wilson is President and CEO of the Portland-Montreal Pipeline Corporation; his pipeline carries imported oil from Portland to Montreal for sale in Canadian markets. On the way, it traverses the Northeast Kingdom. Last Tuesday, he told the committee that his company has no current plans to reverse the flow of the pipeline in order to carry tar-sands oil from western Canada to Portland for export — but, he quickly added, his company fervently hopes to develop such a plan.

(A development I reported the day it happened, one week ago. Congratulations to VPR’s John Dillon for reporting on it yesterday — a mere six days after my posting. Dillon’s report apparently prompted Channel 5’s Stewart Ledbetter and the Associated Press’ Dave Gram to attend today’s hearing. Because, y’know, it’s not really news until someone in the “real media” covers it.)

The subject of the hearing was, again, House Bill 27, which would explicitly require Act 250 review for any substantial alteration in an existing oil pipeline. If the bill passes, Wilson’s company would have to go through the permitting process as if from scratch.

Wilson arrived at the hearing with a full posse at his back, a Southern drawl oozing from his mouth, and a satchel of patent medicines at his side. Well, not really, but he sure had plenty of bromides on offer. Wall-to-wall assurances that the pipeline industry is safe as houses, that transporting thick, sludgy, toxic tar-sands oil is a walk in the park, and that if there’s ever a problem, well, Ma’am, you can count on your friends in the oil industry to clean it up right quick.

And he repeated last week’s message: he has every hope of reversing his pipeline and carrying western oil to Portland by way of the NEK.  

“We do not have an active project to reverse the pipeline. We hope to have a project to use the pipeline.  Moving western Canadian heavy crude* is one possibility. We are confident we can transport heavy crude very safely and efficiently. …We are aggressively pursuing projects to use our resources.”

*WIlson never once uttered the words “tar sands.” To him, tar sands oil is simply heavy crude, nothing more, no worries, move right along, folks.

His tone was consistently polite and measured. At least it was until after his testimony was put on hold so the committee could hear from Jim Murphy of the National Wildlife Federation. (The hearing got started late, and Murphy was on a tight schedule.)

Murphy spoke in favor of the bill. He noted that although the pipeline industry has a good safety record, “Pipelines do fail, and when they fail, they fail catastrophically.” He pointed to the 2010 disaster in southwest Michigan, in which a pipeline carrying tar-sands oil failed and “it took 17 hours before the operator realized there was a spill.” More than a million gallons of heavy, gucky oil spilled into the Kalamazoo River. The river and surrounding waters are still tainted by the oil.

Murphy then spoke about the broader implications of tar-sands oil, which he called “dirtier and more carbon-intensive than any other fossil fuel.” He gave his opinion that Act 250 already applies to a pipeline reversal, but he endorsed H.27 as adding clarity to the issue.

After Murphy’s departure, Wilson returned to the stand and allowed his contempt for environmentalism to show through his veneer of Southern charm. Wilson asserted that Murphy “had several things wrong,” and accused “the environmental movement” of deliberately stretching the truth and “throwing anything at business to delay” new projects.

The rest of his testimony featured some thinly veiled threats. He said H.27 “would impede our ability to access open markets” by imposing “undue regulation.” He then added:

“This bill sends a strong signal to the Canadian government that ‘We (Vermonters) don’t want their oil,’ and it sends a message to companies like ours that ‘We (Vermonters) don’t want your business.’

“If this opportunity does not present itself to us, we will have to determine the best use of our pipeline. It’s been a wonderful run since 1941, and we’d like it to continue.”

In other words, be nice to us or we’ll take our pipeline away.

Gee, Larry, if that’s how you feel, I think we’re more than prepared to tell you exactly where you can stick your pipeline and then reverse the flow.  

I see that the legislature is beginning to consider new screenings for senior drivers, which are common in other states.

As someone who is getting “up there” in years, I wholeheartedly support this measure.

My sister’s mother-in-law drove a little longer than she was competent to, and wound up with her Mercedes lodged half-way through the back wall of her garage.  She had to sit there, perched precariously over a canyon, until someone rescued her three hours later.  No cell phones in those days.

There are worse things than losing one’s driving privileges before you have a chance to die at the wheel.

Still, if we are going to consider this safety screening, isn’t it about time we lay down the law on active cell-phone use while driving?

It used to be that many of the near misses one had as a pedestrian were with huge cars piloted by shrinking old people who couldn’t see well over the steering wheel and were down to the reaction time of a snail.

Not anymore, though.  The vast majority of these encounters, and they seem to be increasing rather than decreasing, are associated with inattentive younger drivers (that is under the age of 60) who cannot stay unplugged even long enough to drive to the local grocery store.

I don’t live in a major metropolis, yet the problem of inattentive drivers is so pervasive that, after dusk, I have taken to wearing a  yellow safety vest and putting an orange safety collar around the waist of my very little, very black dog just so we can startle motorists into noticing we are there.  We are certainly an arresting sight, picking our way across the frozen streets; and fortunately my advancing years preserve me from the vanity that might have earlier restrained me from such an eccentric display.

We used to actually plan ahead before we hit the road, and that worked pretty well.  Cell phones were a great help when things went wrong because we didn’t have to go hunting for a pay phone.  Then, with that usual sense of entitlement that accompanies technology as it passes into the commonplace, we just came to demand instant gratification of all our communication needs.

Deprived of his own personal phone as a small child, by the end of college my son was so plugged-in that he often didn’t know ten-minutes ahead of time whether he was going to the movies in St. Albans or joining a gang headed to Burlington.  He and his friends would decide what to do that evening, and even where to meet, on the spur of the moment.

Now, with multiple communication platforms competing for users’ attention at every moment, the average guy’s cerebral cortex is lit up with more distractions that Shinjuku at rush hour.

So, let’s make a cross-generational deal.  We aging motorists won’t grouse at new testing retirements if everyone else will seriously consider a ban on active cell-phone use while driving.  I don’t just mean texting or watching clips of  a cat doing the hula; I mean the whole shootin’ match.  If you’ve got to talk, pull over.  Period.

Seven Days' Off Message reports an embarrassing but not a surprising oversight: Governor Shumlin failed to reimburse taxpayers for part of a day-long series of flights on Vermont’s state-owned airplane that directly involved his re-election campaign. The entire day of the Governor’s barnstorming around the state cost $322.76, while a whole $65.80 was charged to his campaign for the electioneering portion of the trip.  

But the real news for me lands toward the end of the Seven Days article: a plan has been under consideration for the state to spend $117,600 per year over the next ten years on a new Beechcraft Baron airplane to replace the Cessna currently in use.

The state-owned airplane has been the subject of some discussion in the Statehouse for the past week-and-a-half, since lawmakers caught wind of a budget request from the AOT [Agency of Transportation] to replace the 1962 Cessna with a 2013 Beechcraft Baron.

Given the administration’s ongoing cutting, juggling and general budget skimping, Governor Shumlin is downplaying that little budget item for the time being.

At a press conference last Thursday good Ol’ Governor Shumlin made a point that by the AOT’s reckoning the new plane purchase would have to happen “someday,” and the aging Cessna would have to be dealt with. Shumlin admitted,

“We don't have to do it this year, but at some point we're going to have to deal with it …”

Aw Shucks Shumlin continued in his new, meant-to-be-reassuring just-plain-beer way, stressing that he didn’t mind the ol’ Cessna ‘cause:

“You know, I don't have the fear gene, so I'm alright […]”

But still, Ol’ Governor Aw Shucks Shumlin  managed to point out that, you know, a door did pop open once, and the gas gauge is a bit finicky (although it does seem to respond to a good Gubernatorial thumping), and you know, he doesn’t mind but gosh [!] his staff gets sooo nervous whenever he uses that ol’ state airplane.  

Of course, if Aw Shucks were really the “regular Vermonter” he pretends to be, he’d be paying attention to the way the rest of us live, as in the old Vermont saying Use it Up, Wear it Out, Make it Do, or Do Without.

And then there is the more recent Vermont adage: Don’t buy a new airplane for the state until you raise taxes on them that can afford to pay ’em.  

As Entergy clings to ever more absurd arguments before the PSB, insisting that its pattern of misrepresentations does not constitute “unreliability,”  fibs and distortions are also making nuclear news in California.

The San Onofre nuclear power plant, was moth-balled in 2012 due to  

unusual degradation of the plant’s steam generator tubes.

As you may  recall, an investigation by Vermont’s own Fairewinds Associates, conducted on behalf of Friends of the Earth “persuaded” the NRC to put an indefinite hold on efforts to restart the facility.

Now we are learning that  Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Southern California Edison knew that there were serious design flaws even before the equipment was installed.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and U.S. Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) obtained a leaked copy of the report and wrote to the head of the NRC last week alleging that the report “indicates that Southern California Edison (SCE) and MHI were aware of serious problems with the design of San Onofre nuclear power plant’s replacement steam generators before they were installed.”

It appears that Edison has been trying to pass along the expense associated with this corporate screw-up to the rate-payors.  While it is still uncertain what sort of penalties the company might face for the cover-ups, it has already submitted proposals for restarting the least damaged of the San Onofre reactors.  

An interesting aside is the fact that rate payers have already been paying decommissioning costs to the tune of $3 billion, as of September 2012.  At that time, managers of the decommissioning fund were looking to change the manner in which the decommissioning nest egg was invested for the possibility of a greater yield in a shorter time.  This of course would involve a great deal more risk in the face of market fluctuations, and, with total costs estimated at 3.7 billion and ten years to decommissioning, it seemed an imprudent idea.

The KPBS piece I found on the proposed investment shift suggested that the proposal might be risky for the rate payers, but would definitely be lucrative to investment managers who could charge higher fees for “new categories of investment.”

Then there is the small matter of San Onofre’s location near a seismically active fault line, and in uncomfortably close proximity to dense populations.

The overall picture of the San Onofre operation does not inspire confidence, but Southern California residents are left entirely to the tender mercies of the NRC as they have no real power to prevent a restart.