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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note from jvwalt — I had the chance to interview Doug Hoffer about his initial list of audits, which was nicely summarized by Sue Prent. I’ll add Hoffer’s comments in italics below, and also after the jump. To begin with, he wanted to point out that these are not “financial audits,” which are now done by an outside firm; these are “performance audits,” which try to determine whether a program is achieving its goals and spending its money wisely.

State Auditor, Doug Hoffer, announced today that the office has launched four audits representing its most immediate priorities; among them:

Department of Corrections:

Correct Care Solutions…for verification of cost and performance consistent with the terms of the contract. …the current three-year contract is (for) $53 million.

This is the contract to provide health care services to prison inmates. Hoffer: “I have no reason to believe there’s a problem, but with a contract of this size it never hurts to take a look.”

Agency of Transportation:

(two large contracts to be identified in the planning phase)

The questions? Were they completed on-time, within budget, and did the contractor “meet the performance specifications.”

Two large-scale AOT contracts will be chosen, as something of a representative sample. Hoffer says such audits have “not been done in some time.”

Agency of Administration’s Workers’ Compensation and Injury Prevention Program: The Auditor’s office will organize and review data related to worker’s claims over the past five years in order to

…identify trends and evaluate whether the Program has focused its resources on preventing the most common causes of claims. The amount paid in claims in FY12 was $7.3 million.

Hoffer notes that this is not an audit of workers’ comp itself, but of the state’s injury-prevention and education programs, to see if they are producing results and if there’s anything more that can be done.

State-Issued Cell Phones:Are existiing state-issued phones being “underused,” and where do efficiency opportunities exist that might reduce the cost? (“about $2 million in FY12”)

… we will engage with Buildings & General Services, which manages the cell phone contracts.

Hoffer: “We know in our own lives how challenging it is to find a plan that makes sense. With so many state employees now having cellphones, do they all need them? Are they in the right plan for their needs? What about cellphones that are lost or damaged? A whole range of questions.

“When [our staff] tried to collect preliminary information on the cost of cellphone use in state government, there were several different estimates of the cost. So there’s no serious final number on this. So that’s one of the things we’re looking at, is whether the accounting on cellphones makes sense.”

A fifth area of focus will be prep work (“background research and analysis”) in anticipation of audits of the “Last Mile” telecom program, and the state’s investment in health information technology related to the health care initiative.

More detail on this after the jump.

All in all a valuable and ambitious slate of priorities.

With the uber-capable Hoffer at the helm, this is gonna be good!

All material below is by jvwalt, based on an interview with Doug Hoffer earlier today.

Regarding the prep work for audits of the “Last Mile” telecom program (the effort to bring broadband service to every Vermonter) and health IT, Hoffer says the two audits are so complex that he wants to take time to lay the groundwork so he can more effectively define the parameters of an audit. “The worst thing you can do is tackle a job like that without determining a scope of work with specific objectives.” Expect those two audits to be launched later this year.

You can also expect more audits of IT contracts in the future, since this has been a problematic area for state government.

Finally, it’s now possible to keep track of audits in progress on the Auditor’s website. For each audit currently underway, you’ll see a start date and a projected completion date. Those end dates are set conservatively; if anything, the reports should be done earlier.

Checking the webpage now, I see that the workers’ comp and cellphone audits will be first across the finish line, with projected completions in June. The AOT and Corrections healthcare audits will be done by mid-summer.

Also, there’s one more audit listed for launch this summer with completion by early 2014: an audit of the state’s Sex Offender Registry. According to the webpage, this will be a follow-up to an audit done in 2010: “Due to the findings of that audit, a second audit is required.”

There’s one more piece of news from my conversation with Hoffer, which I will post in a separate diary later this evening or tomorrow morning.  

Entergy Black-out XLVII gets 107 million viewers and it was thirty minutes of must wait and see TV. The ratings are in for Super Bowl XLVII and it was the third most watched broadcast of all time. It averaged 109 million viewers, slightly less than the last two games. And what is now the fourth most watched broadcast of all time?  

Nielsen separated out viewer numbers for the blacked out portion of the game which they are calling “Super Bowl XLVII Delay” but let’s give credit where credit is due so call it “Entergy’s Super Bowl Delay” and found it averaged 107 million viewers. That’s slightly more viewers than saw the final episode of M*A*S*H and almost twice as many as saw the Grammy Awards last year.  

[Entergy’s] “Delay” has been trimmed to 30 minutes in Nielsen’s records: 8:41-9:11 p.m., a.k.a. not long after the end of Beyonce’s halftime show — and lasting twice as long as her performance, BTW.  

The 107 million people who sat through a whole lot of nothing and ad breaks is a bigger crowd than watched the Super Bowl in 2009 and all Super Bowls before that. […]

Turns out, broadcast-network execs for years have wrongheadedly been following their Super Bowl broadcasts with very special episodes of some prime-time show they want viewers to sample.

Damn I missed it all! Is “Delay” on You Tube, NetFlix, anyone?  

Tomorrow at the State House there is an easily overlooked hearing that deserves some attention.

One of the committees that meets all year long is a joint committee called the Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules. It meets to review proposed regulations from state agencies, and is the last step before a regulation becomes final and goes into effect, and the job of this committee is to evaluate whether proposed regulations comply with the intent of legislature in passing the law on which the regulation is based. Usually it's attended by someone from the agency and a handful of advocates either supporting or opposing the regulation, but, as I say, most of what they do doesn't get much public notice.

One of the rules up for review tomorrow is a proposal to include newspaper carriers in the protection of the unemployment compensation system. You probably realize that newspapers generally aren't delivered by the iconic paperboy anymore, that eager youth pedaling his bike up and down the lanes, tossing each day's paper on the doorsteps of his neighbors. No, newspapers are now mostly delivered by adults driving motor routes, getting up at ungodly hours, driving for miles in their broken-down cars for meager pay. (As you might guess, this is not exactly a plum job.)

There are a couple of things of interest about this regulation. First, it's based on a change to the unemployment statute that was adopted way back in 2006. Why, you might ask, are they just getting around to making regulations now? Well, back when this particular change was passed, a change that exempted door to door sales people from unemployment coverage, the Douglas administration informally decided that they would consider that newspaper delivery people would be included in this exemption, regardless of the fact that their job is delivering newspapers, not door to door sales.

The current administration, headed by Governor Shumlin and Labor Departent Commissioner Annie Noonan, has reviewed this policy (it was never publicly adopted as a regulation) and decided that newspaper carriers aren't in the door to door sales business but the newspaper delivery business, so it's only fair to cover these people in the unemployment system. It's about time.

The second very interesting aspect to this hearing is the lineup of supporters and opponents of the legislation.  

As you might expect, most of the witnesses against the rule are newspaper publishers. After all, they make their money by having people deliver newspapers, and if those employees are covered by unemployment the newspapers will have to pay the unemployment tax and might wind up being dinged for some unemployment benefits.

Testifying in favor of the regulation are Michael Sirotkin representing organized labor and Warren Kitzmiller, who was chair of the House Commerce Committee when the law was passed.

Who's the wild card here? Someone identified as  “Vincent Illuzzi, Resident, Derby”. You know, the lifelong Republican who has been praised for his good relations with and support for the working man, the little guy against the bosses.

Vince is testifying against this rule, against the little guy, and in favor of what the bosses want. He must be doing it on his own time, because his paying job right now is lobbying for the VSEA.

 We know that Illuzzi has had good relations with organized labor, and over the years he has run for office with the endorsement, if not the active support, of some of Vermont's biggest unions. Still, in these pages we have seriously questioned VSEA's judgment in hiring someone whose pro-worker bona fides may not be all they seem. (See our November 29, 2012 diary “Is VSEA Crazy?“)

Maybe he'll surprise us, although I know he didn't support the regulation in its progress through the Department of Labor. You have to wonder, though, what one of the lobbyists for one of our biggest unions is doing siding with the bosses and against the workers. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equally reassuring, not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After the jump: misusing parliamentary procedure.

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

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

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

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

The problem is, he was wrong.  

UPDATE: I just came across an article from just about a year ago talking about this same gun manufacturer and quoting the Komen people as saying they had nothing to do with them.  Good news. I hope they can come up with a copy of a cease and desist letter, since they seem to enjoy handing them out pretty liberally to charities they don't like.

Just a quick note. After earlier reports to the contrary, posts later today have indicated that the Susan G. Komen Foundation had nothing to do with the pink gun with which a three-year-old boy, apparently thinking it was a toy, shot himself last week.

According to The Atlantic, a company called Discount Gun Sales had advertised a Komen tie-in for a pink gun they were selling. The Komen Foundation is maintaining that it never had anything to do with the gun promotion and never received any funds, as the ad had promised.

I hope this is true. After their problems last year with Planned Parenthood it would be unconscionable for them to be doing something like this. On the other hand, after their problems with Planned Parenthood it would also be inconceivable for the public to accept the Komen statements at face value. If they're smart, or at least smarter than they were a year ago, they will throw open their files and release everything they have that proves they had nothing to do with the pink gun promotion, and I hope they do exactly that.

Peggy Sapphire

1927 Morey Hill Road

Craftsbury, Vermont 05826

suenos88@vtlink.net

There are few public figures in Vermont who enjoy the veneration and clout of Bill McKibben and Bernie Sanders.   McKibben has long been an unparalleled advocate of the environmental movement and Sanders has been a peerless advocate of the People vs. Corporations.

No more.

Their recent Statehouse forays in opposition to Moratorium bill has taken on the taint, if not the entire cloak, of hypocrisy. Nothing in their past positions would lead one to anticipate their pro corporate-wind pronouncements.

It appears the calculation has been made (in the Governor’s office perhaps) that McKibben’s and Sanders’ command of attention would parallel corporate-scale PR, outstripping the reach of small-scale citizen constituencies.

Their current declarations opposing a Moratorium serve to inflame the deliberative legislative process, and alienate the growing numbers of Vermont’s citizens trying to hold constructive conversations with legislators.

Sanders’ disparagement of anti-corporate wind Vermonters as deniers of climate change, is offensive and wholly without basis. Sanders cannot point to any evidence his insulting remark, because there is none.  

What shall we think of what Sanders has written (The Speech) that “What they [the rich] do is use it [money] to elect people who support them…they use their political power to get legislations passed which makes the wealthy even wealthier.” On the US Senate floor Sanders quotes the late Leona Helmsley that “only the working stiffs out there pay taxes.”

In Vermont’s own Statehouse Sanders abandons the “working stiffs” and advocates on behalf of a corporation like Green Mountain Power, offspring of a Canadian mega-corporation (Gaz Metro/Enbridge). Again in The Speech Sanders says “If you are a large corporation…you know what to do.”

Most of us are familiar with Bernie’s themes, and probably assume he’s been sticking up for us, the “People” when he speaks of “working stiffs”. We’ve trusted him when he pays tribute with words such as “The vast majority of people, working people, middle-class people, low-income people are losing. That’s who’s losing. It is clear who is winning. The wealthiest people are doing phenomenally well.” Sanders asks “Does that sound like democracy?”  

I ask: Does Sanders sound like Sanders when he pushes us to accept corporate-scale wind?

In the Northeast Kingdom where multiple IWT (industrial wind turbines) already exist and where  dozens more are proposed, communities of working people, small dairy farmers, local merchants, low-income residents in remote towns live and struggle to pay taxes. In fact, the NEK residents of Lowell struggled so mightily that they grabbed the big money bonus’ thrown their way by GMP.  GMP correctly calculated that, $550,000 for ten years would buy them the right to destroy Lowell Mountain.

I ask you, Bernie Sanders, is such a transaction about climate change or money?

When GMP said they would only build IWT if they received tax incentives ($45 million), was that about climate change or money?

I ask you, McKibben and Sanders, Why are the most economically vulnerable Vermont towns being targeted to trade mountain ridges for cash bonus”?  Why are Vermonters who live closest to the economic bone in the least developed part of our state (read: poorest) being targeted into accepting the corporate boot on their environment, mountains, wildlife and headwaters?  How do McKibben and Sanders justify killing ecosystems in the name of fighting climate change?

Sanders worries that Vermont will “look bad” if we don’t go along with IWTs.  He ought to be proud that Vermont ranks 49th nationally due to its negligible carbon emissions.  

Pro-Moratorium Vermonters are the ones who carry Vermont’s environmentalist banner and we have the facts on our side: Vermont’s obsolete, inadequate transportation system is the biggest driver – 47% – of our carbon emissions because Vermont does not invest in public/mass transportation. Vermont’s residential and commercial carbon emissions contribute 31% because we have not invested in renewable heating sources.  

If Sanders doesn’t want Vermont to “look bad” he ought to re-visit the Statehouse and, in his inimitable style, demand our legislators get busy crafting laws to correct this correctable emissions crisis.

Let’s review McKibben’s history. Perhaps he now regrets his revealing remark to a SolarFest crowd in October, 2010 (www.nucleartownhall.com) that he accepts nuclear energy as part of reducing carbon emissions. He avoids publicizing that view because, he says, “It would split this movement [350.org] in half.”  One can read McKibben’s The End of Nature, where he writes unequivocally, “We must substitute, conserve, plant trees, perhaps even swallow our concerns over safety and build some nuclear plants.”  

In his 2010 book, Eaarth, McKibben muses about renewable energy and says “If you’re going to build big…the biggest wind farms need the steady gusts of the Midwest…” He’s correct about the Midwest, and the National Renewable Energy Lab confirms it. Yet McKibben denies the NREL findings show that Vermont will never generate sufficient wind energy to justify corporate-scale development. The McKibben I know should be railing against the destruction of Vermont mountain ridges.

McKibben reported (Eaarth) the following when he learned of a farmer in Cameroon, who responded to his 350.org campaign, “He [the farmer] and his neighbors planted 350 trees on the edge of the village…This gesture made me weep.  People in Cameroon have done nothing to cause global warming.” People in Vermont have done nothing to cause global warming either. Is McKibben uninformed about Vermont’s place as 49th nationally as a contributor of carbon emissions?

Ironically, McKibben notes that the Cameroon farmer was able to send a photo of this tree planting by cell phone, and tells us. “…you have to go pretty far back of beyond to find a village without a cell phone.” Well, Bill McKibben, speaking from the back of beyond here in Vermont’s Northeast Kingdom, there’s no cell phone service here.

In McKibben’s book Eaarth, he observes that “small-scale “farming is again being recognized “perhaps just in time to help us deal with the strains of our new planet.” He observes that in England, “Most of the serious people are agronomists, however, who have begun to think more closely about the assumptions underlying our [American] ingrained view that big is better.” McKibben and Sanders themselves promote the “big is better” approach by throwing their lot in with corporate wind.

 I invite Sanders and McKibben to tour the Lowell Mountain IWTs in the Spring. I’d like them to imagine the hundreds of never-to-be replaced carbon-ingesting trees torn from that Earth in the name of global warming.  

You will be welcomed to climb Lowell and see for yourself the twenty-one turbines, each 460′ tall as they sit on now impervious surfaces, along impervious access roads, which now can carry only contaminated headwaters down the mountain, through once pristine streams.

Perhaps you will both weep.

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

The key line from its new report:

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

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

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

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

But wait, there’s more:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Return of the Memefaces, Special Derpface Edition!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the immortal tones of Jack Benny, WELL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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