In March Burlington will issue a report on a review of their livable wage ordinance for the Skinny Pancake’s Burlington Airport restaurant. Well, the review is not specifically for the Skinny Pancake, but a result of questions surrounding a “substantial economic hardship” exemption from the ordinance the city granted the local restaurant chain.  

The Free Press reports that the wage ordinance is under “intense review by city officials.” The overhaul is needed, according to Burlington city officials, to eliminate confusion that might, they fear, stunt sustainable, entrepreneurial growth.

Burlington Business Association Director Kelly Devine explains all about ‘intense reviews’ and her hopes for this one

“Businesses do that all the time,” Devine said Friday. “They examine their income stream; they examine their expense stream to see how they’re performing — there’s an open-ended opportunity to make adjustments.”

Oh, so, no need to worry. It is just “a good hard look” and an intense review that will result in clarification of a puzzling set of rules for the smoother successful operation of business. As they say, it’s an “open-ended opportunity” to make some “adjustments.”  

Well here is a little test: List as many as you can of the “good hard looks and intense reviews”  by state and municipal officials over the past few years that resulted in cuts to wages, benefits and services in Vermont.  And next list all (or any) official “intense reviews and good hard looks” that resulted in salary or benefits cuts, tax increases or any hardship on the state’s high-income earners.

Now take a long hard look, which list is longer?  

They deny the blame.

Oh, Freeploid, you little rascal you, trying to stir up a little trouble on a midwinter Sunday morning. Front page, Sunday paper, headline and photo reproduced in accordance with the Fair Use standard of copyright law:

See, the problem with a tabloid newspaper is you’ve got one shot to catch readers’ attention. One big story, one big picture, grab them eyeballs. If you’ve actually got a catchy story, it’s wonderful. If you don’t, and you have to manufacture one, well, you get irresponsible nonsense like TAX ON FUN.

The sad thing is, the headline sullies an otherwise fine article by Terri Hallenbeck, in which she actually explores all the issues surrounding break-open tickets and Shumlin’s proposed tax.

Here’s the problem. Well, two problems. First, governments tax fun ALL THE TIME. Alcohol taxes, amusement taxes, meals and rooms taxes. If they could get it through the legislature without laughing, they’d probably have lube-and-sex-toy taxes. (And I’d love to see the Freeploid headline about that.)

Second, if break-open tickets are your idea of “fun,” you need to get a life. A break-open ticket is a brief moment of diversion while slamming down Governor Shumlin’s Favorite Adult Beverage at a bar or social club. Go back to the Freeploid: does Grandpa look like he’s having fun?

In honor of the Freeploid’s decisive stomp over the line into yellow journalism, I offer them a new motto in the same spirit:

The Burlington Free Press: SMALLER, CRAPPIER, COSTLIER.

You’re welcome.  

BP just handed me a link to this Fast Company story which lays out a history of Entergy failures and alleged corruption in “service” of its Louisiana customers.  ‘Seemed more than worthy of inclusion here on GMD.

__________________________________________________________________________________

There’s nothing like the Super Bowl to command media attention.  

That’s why CEO’s will sell their firstborn to buy ad time, and Madison Avenue touts outdo each other to make their multi-million dollar seconds the ones everyone remembers.

But this year’s Superbowl standout had to be the 34 minute power outage, sponsored by none other than Entergy New Orleans.  

Yes, that same Entergy; or at least its evil twin.

Of course, Entergy has blamed a failure of equipment at the Superdome for the outage, and insists power was flowing to the stadium at the time the lights blinked out.  Nevertheless, at least at my house, there were knowingly raised eyebrows.

So what is the take-away from this blockbuster power poop-out?  Maybe it’s just a reminder that we all had better be prepared for some spectacular failures as consumption inevitably ticks up with the return of economic vitality, and aging transmission infrastructure continues to decline under the questionable stewardship of “private enterprise.”  

It’s only a coincidence that Entergy New Orleans played a role in the Superbowl blackout just as we revisited the whopper told by Entergy Louisiana to our own Public Service Board; but it did my heart good to imagine Entergy executives fanning away palpitations up in their mink-lined sky box, knowing full well what the coming week has in store for them.

This significant tidbit came to my attention yesterday, just after the key snapped off in the front door, the kitchen sink backed-up, the gas meter packed in, and my husband got a flat without a spare tire.

Now that the dust is beginning to settle on the wreck of our material lives, I am returning to the incontrovertible evidence, reinforcing mere memory, that, way back in 2002, Entergy not once, but twice gave its  guarantee, it’s“100% promise,” to shut down operations in 2012, should the facility not be issued a certificate of public good to continue operating.  

There it is in black and white: embedded in the testimony given before the Public Service Board, on February 6, 2002 by one Mr. Michael Kansler, self-identified as

employed by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. as Senior Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer. I am also Senior Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, owned by Entergy Nuclear Vermont  Investment Company.”

Feb. 5, 2002; p. 216… Our intent here is obviously we have to get permission from the NRC for renewal, but also is to get basically Vermont’s permission to continue to license also, and so at this point we don’t envision that we would turn this into a battle, say we’re going to continueoperations again the wishes of the State of Vermont.

Chairman Dworkin: Are you making a commitment that you won’t do that?

Mr. Kansler: I won’t say one hundred percent sure it’s nota possibility, but right now I would say our intent is not to turn this into a battle. If the State doesn’t want it, we wouldn’t go forward with it.

Feb. 6, 2002; p 25

Mr. Kansler:… I guess what I would say is that the commitment in the deal is that we will get your approval, therefore we would get your approval. If we don’t get your approval we won’t get life extension.

Chairman Dworkin: That sounds like a hundred percent guarantee.

Mr. Kansler: That’s a hundred percent guarantee.

Board Member Coen: It’s a change in your position?

Mr. Kansler: Yes.

(Michael Kansler’s technical testimony in  Docket 6545 (in 2001-2))

Chairman Dworkin goes on to repeat to Mr. Kansler exactly what he has committed Entergy to doing, ie. respecting the decision of the PSB; and asks Mr. Kansler to confirm that he has understood correctly.  Mr. Kansler replies that he has.

Chairman Dworkin: I want to just tell

counsel that this obviously is an issue of

major significance. And the specific drafting

of it in such a way as to ensure that it is

extraordinarily likely to be effective is a

matter to which we will want careful

attention. If it turns out that, you know,

one form is more subject to challenge as a

regulatory matter under which there might be

preemption, and another form is more likely to

be sustained as a contractual commitment, we

want people to consider that possibility. But

I want the substance of it which is that

Entergy has no expectation and no reliance on

any chance to preempt this Board’s decision on

it. And that the commitment is, as you said a

few minutes ago, a hundred percent to be

understood as substance, and the text to lock

that in as well as any lawyer can lock it in.

Is that Entergy’s understanding at this stage?

Mr. Kansler: That’s my understanding. Yes.

I’d like to know at what point Entergy will be on the hook legally for having lied to the Public Service Board in order to obtain permission to own and operate Vermont Yankee?  ‘Seems to me that the state ought to be the entity bringing suit against Entergy!

Mendacity would appear to pervade the industry, as this bit of further fibbing seems to confirm.

Apparently, the NRC has finally concluded that Exelon, which has reportedly been interested in acquiring Vermont Yankee from Entergy  

Deliberately provided incomplete and inaccurate decommissioning estimates.  Enforcement action pending (January 13, 2013)

You can file that under “Closing the Barn Door After the Cow Got Loose.”

Does anyone want to bet that the underestimates are not industry wide?

Coming soon to a front page near you:  the really, really bad news about the true cost of decommissioning Vermont Yankee, and how poor Entergy just can’t be expected to shoulder that financial responsibility.

On Thursday, the anti-wind group Energize Vermont released its plan for achieving a green energy future for Vermont by the year 2030. In his presentation of the plan, EV chief Luke Snelling sought to separate his group from those who deny the pressing reality of climate change. This plan, he said, proves that Vermont doesn’t need any more utility-scale wind in order to realize a clean-energy future. (It does depend on the current wind farms continuing to operate through 2030, which may be a bitter disappointment to those who claim to suffer negative health impacts from living near wind turbines.)

Problem. The plan actually proves just the opposite: it’s extremely difficult, if not impossible, to achieve a green future without additional utility-scale wind.

In this post, I’m comparing EV’s plan with VPIRG’s 2009 report, “Repowering Vermont.” First, the highlights; then the details.

— EV’s plan creates a lot less energy than VPIRG’s.

— EV’s plan makes no provision for widespread adoption of electric vehicles.

— EV continues Vermont’s reliance on nuclear power — and even increases it for a decade.

— EV relies much more heavily on power from Hydro Quebec, which has significant environmental consequences, including a need to upgrade transmission lines through the Northeast Kingdom.

— EV’s plan consumes far more fossil fuels between now and 2030, because if you take wind off the table, it takes a lot longer to grow a renewable power supply.  

VPIRG’s plan calls for the construction of six more wind farms the size of Lowell and Sheffield. With current facilities plus six more, Vermont would get 28% of its electricity needs from wind — including enough electricity to account for widespread adoption of electric vehicles.

These are all facts taken directly from the two reports.

After the jump: Five charts and a lot of information.  

Here are three pie charts. The first, from EV’s report, shows our current energy mix. The second is EV’s vision for a greener 2030. The third is the equivalent chart from VPIRG.

These charts illustrate many of my points, but they obscure one very crucial one: EV’s plan would produce far less energy than VPIRG’s. EV’s target figure is 6500 GWh (gigawatt hours), while VPIRG accounts for 8400 GWh. Both plans foresee significant efficiency gains; VPIRG makes allowances for widespread use of electric vehicles.

It gets worse. In 2030, EV sees Vermont getting 9% of its power from market sources (usually fossil fuels-based, not considered renewable) and 7% from nuclear, VPIRG includes no nuclear power and only 5% from market sources. So, if you take nuclear and market power out of the equation, EV’s plan would produce 5460 GWh of renewable power, while VPIRG’s would produce 7980.

EV’s reliance on nuclear also hits a deadline shortly after 2030. Current power contracts with out-of-state reactors expire in 2035; would EV extend those contracts? If not, where would it find an additional 7% of our power supply?

EV would increase our dependence on power from Hydro Quebec. HQ power, from huge hydroelectric dams in northern Quebec, negatively impacts the environment, wildlife, and native populations. EV would see an increase in use of HQ power from 34% today to 38% in 2030. VPIRG would reduce HQ’s share of our pie to 24%.

Also, the transmission lines from HQ through the Northeast Kingdom are maxed out, or close to it. Using more HQ power would require a major upgrade of transmission lines, which brings new costs and environmental impacts.  

There’s one more huge drawback to the EV plan, as can be seen in a close examination of these two charts. The first is EV’s, and the second is VPIRG’s.

By eschewing expansion of utility-scale wind, EV takes much longer to approach its goal, which would mean burning a lot more fossil fuel along the way. Look at the electric-power mix in the middle range of both charts, and you’ll see the effect of forgoing wind:

— EV would increase dependence on nuclear power for more than a decade, between 2015 and 2025.

— “Market sources” continues to be a sizable source for EV into the mid-2020s, while VPIRG cuts our use of market power to 5% by 2017.

— By either account, it will take another decade or more to ramp up solar power, while wind resources can be increased within a few years. Utility-scale wind can provide one-fourth of our power much more quickly than solar can get out of the single digits.

And one more question for backers of the EV plan. Many of those who are concerned about utility-scale wind have also opposed expansion of biomass and in-state hydro — and, in some cases, solar. If we turn away from wind and toward sources like biomass, local hydro and solar, will EV’s backers accept that? Or will expansion of biomass and solar result in further opposition? If so, then EV’s target becomes impossible to hit.

In sum, EV’s plan would produce a lot less power, rely more heavily on environmentally impactful sources, and would fall short of providing the power needed for widespread use of electric-powered transportation.

The question, then: Do we think the effects of a modest increase in utility-scale wind are bad enough that we are willing to accept all the shortfalls and drawbacks of Energize Vermont’s plan? Is its total environmental footprint larger or smaller than VPIRG’s?

I think the answer to that last question is obvious to anyone approaching this issue with an open mind.  

 After conceding defeat, the Romney campaign cut off staffers’ credit card access with such lightning speed that some campaign aides found they had to pay their own cab fare home on election night. Well fast forward a mere three months to 2013 and we find the Romney Victory fund is being uncharacteristically generous with its final cash dispersals.  

Politico.com said Friday that a recent Federal Election commission report shows that Romney’s Victory Fund “quietly” made a charitable donation of almost $90,000 ($89,585.18) to the Red Cross for Hurricane Sandy relief efforts.  Other transfers mentioned quietly but perhaps no less “charitable” include a chunk of Victory fund cash handed over to Vermont’s chronically underfunded GOP and three other GOP state committees.

In all, Romney for President and Romney Victory cut checks totaling nearly $27 million in December, which is not usual for a presidential campaign winding down. That included transfers totaling $650,000 to the state parties in Idaho, Massachusetts, Oklahoma and Vermont.

The two Romney committees finished the year with a little more than $4 million in the bank […]

During the campaign, Vermont’s chronically underfunded GOP and three other Republican state committees acted as the temporary drop box for Romney Victory cash. Vermont received the most Victory cash and at one point had almost $8 million on hand. As part of the deal, the VTGOP was paid a monthly $20,000 fee by the Romney campaign for the months the money was tucked away but inaccessible in its accounts.

The Romney Victory Fund was one of several entities that legally shifted large bundles of campaign funds around hither and yon in a  way shockingly characteristic of money laundering. The Wall Street Journal reported that investment companies were warning clients because donations to the Victory fund could trigger SEC violations.

It all ends well: despite the millions, Romney was defeated, the Red Cross got a little relief for the victims of Hurricane Sandy, and the Vermont GOP gets a little something for its future disasters.  

Ed Koch has died at age 88 and after all his changes hardly anyone will remember when he was a liberal congressman from the Silk Stocking District in Manhattan's Upper East Side, but I have a particular reason to recall it.

In the late 1960's Koch gained a lot of prominence as an opponent of the Vietnam War. Because my high school, Regis, was in his district, he came to speak at our school one day. I think it was probably the spring of 1970, and many of us were demonstrating and organizing against the war so we were pretty excited about hearing him speak.

From conversations I've had since his death I know that I was not the only member of the audience to be bitterly disappointed with his speech. It's over forty years ago, but I remember clearly that literally the only thing he objected to about the war was the negative impact it had on the Americans who were being sent to die there. Nothing about American imperialism, nothing about killing the Vietnamese, nothing about My Lai, although Seymour Hersh had broken the story the previous November. 

No, In Koch's view the biggest problem, the only problem he chose to talk about, was that the war was bad because it was bad for Americans. This is not to say that the effect of the war on Americans was irrelevant, but it was not by any means the most important reason to oppose the war.

As you know, Koch went on to follow his Silk Stocking District predecessor, John Lindsay, to the mayorship. Many people will remember his move to the Right, his involvement with corrupt officials, or his failure to respond to the AIDS crisis, but what will always stick in my mind is how he could be wrong about being right about Vietnam. 

Wow. The Republicans’ chances of picking up John Kerry’s Senate seat just evaporated.

Scott Brown, who surprised the political world with his upset victory in the 2010 special election, announced Friday afternoon that he will not enter the special election to replace John F. Kerry.

Brown was the frontrunner in the Republican race by far, and recent polls gave him a double-digit lead over the likely Democratic candidates, Congressmen Ed Markey and Stephen Lynch.

Brown’s decision leaves the Republican Party scrambling to find a viable candidate for the June 25 election. To make the ballot, candidates must gather 10,000 certified signatures in four weeks.

The Boston Globe reported today that national Republicans had mounted a “full court press” to convince Brown to stay in the race.

His stated reasons for stepping aside: campaign fatigue in the face of running a third race in four years, and disaffection with the partisan atmosphere in Washington. As for his real reasons, I won’t hazard a guess and I don’t really care. Looks like the Dems will hold onto the seat.

Must be an especially bitter disappointment for national Republicans after their maneuverings over the Secretary of State nomination. They scotched Susan Rice, at least partly in hopes of clearing Kerry’s seat for another run by Scott Brown. And if it hadn’t been for Senator McDreamy’s short attention span, it probably would have worked.  

Today, I officially inaugurate the Trivia Question as a way of having some ‘more’ fun here on GMD.  I mean, we have fun all the time.  We should have a show on WCAX (and True North radio–are they still on?).  But now, we can have fun with history, music, movies, AND politics (lots of trivia there), AND, of course, Nuclear Contamination by Vt. Yankee, Fukushima, and Godzilla.  Speaking of contamination, a What Politician (Or Other Asshole) Said This question would bring on the Yuks too.

So, here goes, kiddies.  The first question is a History question:

What was realized by Operation Uranus (NOT a joke, folks) on Feb. 2 (Groundhog Day) a long time ago?

And, if you have any good ones of your own, well…save ’em.

I will delete these after correct answers are posted.