Despite such terminology as “fiscal cliff” and “debt ceiling,” the great debate taking place in Washington now has relatively little to do with financial issues.  It is all about ideology.  It is all about economic winners and losers in American society.  It is all about the power of Big Money.  It is all about the soul of America.

In America today, we have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth, and more inequality than at any time period since 1928.  The top 1 percent owns 42 percent of the financial wealth of the nation, while, incredibly, the bottom 60 percent own only 2.3 percent.  One family, the Walton family of Wal-Mart, owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of Americans.  In terms of income distribution in 2010, the last study done on this issue, the top 1 percent earned 93 percent of all new income while the bottom 99 percent shared the remaining 7 percent.  

Despite the reality that the rich are becoming much richer while the middle class collapses and the number of Americans living in poverty is at an all-time high, the Republicans and their billionaire backers want more, more, and more.  The class warfare continues.    

My Republican colleagues say that the deficits are a spending problem, not a revenue problem.  What these deficit-hawk hypocrites won’t talk about is their spending. They won’t discuss what they did to dig the country into this $1 trillion deep deficit hole. They waged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq without paying for them. They gave away huge tax breaks for the rich. They squandered taxpayer dollars on the pharmaceutical industry by making it illegal to let Medicare bargain for lower drug prices. They also rescinded financial regulations that enabled Wall Street to operate like a gambling casino, leading to a severe recession that eroded tax revenue and left more than 14 percent of American workers unemployed or underemployed.

Now, despite the deficits their policies helped to create and despite the enormous suffering which exists in our society, the Republicans want to cut Social Security, veterans’ programs, Medicare, Medicaid, education, nutrition programs, and virtually every program which benefits low- and moderate-income Americans. They choose to turn their backs on the economic reality facing a significant part of our population: high unemployment, reduced wages, 50 million without health insurance, college graduates saddled with enormous student debt and elderly people living in desperation. And they have tried to slam the door on any further discussion about how to raise revenue by ending tax loopholes and unfair tax breaks.

Republicans like Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who say the revenue debate is over don’t want you to consider these facts:

•  Federal revenue today, at 15.8 percent of GDP, is lower today than it was  60 years ago.  During the last year of the Clinton administration, when we had a significant federal surplus, federal revenue was 20.6 percent of GDP.  

•  Today corporate profits are at an all-time high, while corporate income tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is near a record low.

•  In 2011, corporate revenue as a percentage of GDP was just 1.2 percent – lower than any other major country in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, including Britain, Germany, France, Japan, Canada, Norway, Australia, South Korea, Switzerland, Norway, Italy, Ireland, Poland, and Iceland.

•  In 2011, corporations paid just 12 percent of their profits in taxes, the lowest since 1972.

•  In 2005, one out of four large corporations paid no income taxes at all while they collected $1.1 trillion in revenue over that one-year period.

We know where the Republicans are coming from.  What about the Democrats?  Will President Obama fulfill his campaign pledge to “protect the middle class” or will he surrender to right-wing blackmail?  Will Democrats in the House and Senate stand with the vast majority of our citizens and such organizations as AARP, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the AFL-CIO, the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and every other veterans’ organization in the fight against cuts to Social Security and veterans’ programs, or will they agree to a disastrous corporate-backed “chained CPI” concept which makes major benefit cuts to those programs and raises taxes on low-income workers?

The simple truth is there are relatively easy ways to deal with the deficit crisis – without attacking the elderly, the children the sick or the poor.

For example, we have got to eliminate loopholes in the tax code that allow large corporations and the wealthy to avoid more than $100 billion in taxes every year by setting up offshore tax shelters in places like the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and the Bahamas.  This situation has become so absurd that one five-story office building in the Cayman Islands is now the “home” to more than 18,000 corporations.  

Further, we must also end tax breaks for companies shipping American jobs overseas.  Today, the United State government continues to reward companies that move American manufacturing jobs abroad, despite the fact that millions of American jobs have been outsourced to China, Mexico, and other low wage countries over the past decade.  The Joint Committee on Taxation (the official revenue scorekeeper in Congress) has estimated that we could raise more than $582 billion in revenue over the next decade by eliminating these offshore tax loopholes.

We must also recognize that Wall Street recklessness caused the economic crisis, and it has a responsibility to reduce the deficit.  Establishing a 0.03 percent Wall Street speculation fee, similar to what we had from 1914-1966, would dampen the dangerous level of speculation and gambling on Wall Street, encourage the financial sector to invest in the productive economy and reduce the deficit by more than $350 billion over 10 years.

We are entering a pivotal moment in the modern history of our country. Do the elected officials in Washington stand with ordinary Americans – working families, children, the elderly, the poor – or will the extraordinary power of billionaire campaign contributors and Big Money prevail?  The American people, by the millions, must send Congress the answer to that question.

(The projected title of my forthcoming children’s book, based loosely on today’s gubernatorial event.)

I think it’s safe to say that a politician is on a roll when he schedules an outdoor news event for early January in Vermont, and he draws a sunny day with unseasonably warm temperatures. So yeah, Governor Shumlin is on a roll.

The Governor was happy as a pig in you-know-what as he presided over the dedication of the future state mental hospital in Berlin. And revealed the funding sources for the $42 million project, which (he says) are already accounted for, and will require no state funding aside from amounts already set aside.  

Construction won’t actually start for another nine days (completion projected for early spring 2014), but there was a definite air of victory and celebration. Shumlin was surrounded by state and local officials*, legislative leaders, FEMA’s top liaison with Vermont, a friendly crowd that applauded frequently (news media excepted, natch), and a guy who I assume was Shumlin’s security, wearing the Winter Ensemble from the Secret Service Men’s Catalog and a pair of Samuel L. Jackson motherf*cker sunglasses, scanning the crowd for signs of trouble.

*There was even a rare Doug Racine sighting! Although he stayed well in the background and didn’t say a word during the ceremony.

And there was none. Afterward, he even cracked a smile as he talked the new James Bond film with VPR’s John Dillon. (Aww, John, I had you pegged for an art-house subtitle kind of guy.)

But I digress, I certainly do.  

Shumlin and friends, putting the “dig” in “dignitary.”

Shumlin exuded an air of confidence bordering on smugness, calling the post-Irene effort to remake the mental health care system “an example of the best of Vermont,” claiming that “we all made the right decision together” (which would come as a surprise to the medical professionals who still have real concerns with his plan), and promising “the best community-based mental health system in America” (gee, I thought it was the first and only one).

The confidence came less from the groundbreaking itself than from the financial package he was able to unveil. Vermont will get at least $30 million combined from FEMA and its insurance carrier. The precise mix remains to be seen, as Shumlin explained:

The first payment has to come from the insurer. When we get money from FEMA, it’s a 90-10 match, so we have to pay 10%. So our first job is to wrangle as much out of the insurance company as we can get; then we turn to the FEMA dollars.

The remaining cost, somewhere between $12.5 and $15 million, will come from state coffers — but last year, $18 million was set aside in the capital budget for the purpose, so no new funds will be needed.

The news might get even better. As you may recall, there’s been a dispute between the state and FEMA on whether to build structures that are equivalent to what existed pre-Irene or better, more flood-resistant, and more expensive replacements. Apparently, Sen. Patrick Leahy has added language to the Hurricane Sandy aid bill that would loosen FEMA’s rules on this point. If the bill becomes law, Vermont is likely to get even more FEMA dollars.  

Although it’s clear that Shumlin is getting less money from FEMA than he’d hoped, he said he was “thrilled” with the outcome, and allowed himself to take a victory lap at his critics’ expense:

I have taken some heat over the last months for pushing ahead with this project without knowing exactly how the dollars would flow. I take responsibility for that judgment.

Which is an easy thing to say when you’ve cemented your funding, but yes, he has managed to back up his self-confidence with results.

The Governor also claimed  that if you look at it in a certain way, federal funds will more than pay the entire cost of the new system:

When the federal government decertified our state hospital a decade ago, Vermont lost $10 million every single year in federal reimbursements. We anticipate that when this system comes on line, we will once again enjoy the federal reimbursements. Put in very rough math, when we get those reimbursements back, we will pay for our entire new system with federal dollars in roughly a year and a half.

Eh, yes and no. Shumlin is doing what he’s consistently done: compare his new system to the much-detested Vermont State Hospital. The choice wasn’t between the old VSH and a shiny new system; it was between a new State Hospital and a decentralized system. Truth is, if a new central hospital had been built, it would also have been sunny, inviting, and state-of-the-art, and would also have re-qualified Vermont for that $10 million per year.

There are still a few i’s to dot and t’s to cross, but whether or not you agree with the Governor’s plan, yesterday was a milestone in the Irene recovery effort. FEMA funds will begin to flow within 30 days. Shumlin expects a final decision on funding for the rest of the Waterbury office complex in “a month to a month and a half.”  

A few days ago we reported news of a negative financial outlook for Entergy Nuclear, and its possible implications for future operation of Vermont Yankee. There was much more on the subject in Sunday’s edition of the Mitchell Family Organ, available in print at your local library or online here for subscribers.

Reporter Susan Smallheer interviewed UBS analyst Julien Dumoulin-Smith, who issued the report on Entergy’s tight finances, and he added some important information.

First, the reason for Entergy’s cash crunch is that the newly-abundant supply of natural gas is hitting the nuclear industry hard.  

Natural gas is clearly overtaking coal, and nuclear is the next wave of potential victims.

This trend has the greatest impact on smaller reactors like Vermont Yankee.

Next question: If Dumoulin-Smith’s analysis is correct, and Entergy could actually ease its cash crunch by closing VY, why is it fighting so hard to keep the plant open? He provides two reasons, neither of which have anything to do with providing safe, clean, reliable blah blah blah, or any commitment to the great people of Vermont.  

First and foremost, Entergy is looking beyond VY to a pending battle over the Indian Point reactor in New York state. “It’s really all about Indian Point,” he told Smallheer, who elaborated:

New York environmental officials have been battling with Entergy over the environmental effects of Indian Point’s water withdrawals from the Hudson River, with state officials saying cooling towers were needed to mitigate the environmental impacts of such large water withdrawals.

Apparently Entergy fears that if Vermont wins its bid to close Yankee, it could set a precedent in the battle with New York over Indian Point. Dumoulin-Smith said “the nuclear industry as a whole [is] closely watching the Vermont regulatory fight.”

Nice to know that Yankee is nothing more than a pawn in a game that doesn’t involve Vermont at all.

Second, Dumoulin-Smith says that even though operating Yankee is a financial drain, it’s not as big a drain as closing and decommissioning would be.

One more little nine-figure detail: his analysis didn’t take into account the impending necessity of replacing Vermont Yankee’s aging condenser, which carries a $100-million price tag. And makes continuing operation even more of a drag on Entergy’s bottom line.

But with far bigger stakes at risk, Entergy is willing to go all-out in its legal battle with Vermont, even through its actual interest in VY is limited or nonexistent.

Oh by the way, the official response? Entergy spokesflack Robert Williams fired up his Bumph-O-Mat, which barfed out the following:

“Our nuclear units are important sources of clean, reliable power, and we remain fully focused on the safe operation of the plants,” he said. “As a matter of policy, Entergy does not comment on the financial performance of individual plants.”

And he refused to answer any of Smallheer’s questions, natch. Nice to have such a public-spirited corporation Managing Our Nuclear Future.  

I just read something on Enformable that bears sharing; especially since we got a little off-track on the gun control thread and ended up discussing bombs.

It could be that  Japan’s epic nuclear tragedy may still have a third act to play out.

Apparently, there is an effort afoot to turn the Rokkasho Nuclear Reprocessing Facility in Aomori prefecture into the mega spent-fuel dumping ground for a host of other Asian countries including Korea and Viet Nam.

Rokkasho, which re-processes spent-fuel into MOX fuel is already handling as much domestic material as it possibly can, and has come under criticism not only because of the controversial nature of its product but also because, just last month, geomorphologists reported that it has been found to be situated over an active earthquake fault.

The controversy surrounding MOX fuel production has two aspects.  The first concern for the international community is the plutonium storage that is involved:

Japan already has enough plutonium stockpiled to create hundreds of nuclear bombs, which with Japan’s current stance on nuclear weapons, is only becoming more and more of a proliferation and safety risk to keep in temporary storage

Secondly, the reprocessed fuel has proven to have practical issues:

The nuclear village and government officials have been working hard to deflect criticism that the Japanese nuclear fuel cycle plans are a complete waste of money, as neither the Monju fast breeder reactor nor the Rokkasho facility has been able to overcome frequent malfunctions and delays… Since 2009, only 4 nuclear reactors have burned MOX fuel, one of which melted down at Fukushima Daiichi.

Within that “nuclear village and government,” a corrupt culture  not only contributed to worsening outcomes at Fukushima, but continues to operate a frantic spin cycle, moving heaven and earth to sway Japanese public opinion and save  a powerful industry.

Korean officials say Japanese reports of their interest in reprocessing at Rokkasho are without substance.

In response to the news of the report, Korean officials assured the press that they were not considering Japan as a resource for reprocessing its spent nuclear fuel, inferring that this had only been another last ditch effort by Japans officials to “look for silver lining,” no matter what the reality may be.

Looks like poor beleaguered Japan may have a tough time shedding the yoke of nuclear folly.

And finally, here’s the fuller version of the Monday presser.

Today’s topic was fighting recidivism. There were two announcements; highlights first, details after the jump.  

— A new DUI Treatment Court. The idea is to give repeat DUI offenders an opportunity to clean up their act with disciplined, consistent oversight by the courts. Bobby Sand is leaving his post as Windsor County State’s Attorney to head up the effort, which will be paid for by a three-year federal grant totaling roughly $300,000.

— A merger of the Community High School of Vermont and Vermont Correctional Industries. The aim is to give inmates real, marketable job skills by the time they leave prison.

There won’t be a formal news conference tomorrow, but Shumlin will be attending a dedication ceremony for the mental hospital in Berlin. And today he hinted at major announcements about the mental health care system he’ll be making tomorrow. The likely focus of those announcements became clear late today, when VTDigger reported that FEMA is set to announce its funding for new psychiatric facilities to replace the shuttered Vermont State Hospital.

On an unrelated subject, former top Shumlin aide Alex MacLean has a new job. She’s signing on with Bill Stenger’s big Northeast Kingdom deal. Actual job title: Project Manager for the Northeast Kingdom Economic Development Initiative.

In English? “I will be helping Bill and his team with investor relations and investor recruitment as well as the communications efforts around the various projects.”

As for why she’s taking the job: “I’m from the Northeast Kingdom, born and raised there, and I’m just thrilled to have the opportunity to help create jobs and revitalize that region.”

Her close ties with Shumlin won’t hurt either.  

More on recidivism after the jump.  

When Bobby Sand stepped to the microphone, he immediately cemented himself as my favorite State’s Attorney by quoting the great science fiction writer WIlliam Gibson: “The future is already here; it’s just not very evenly distributed.”

In this case, a reference to anti-DUI initiatives launched in Sand’s bailiwick. He’ll now be charged with even distribution throughout the state.

The new thing is usually called “DUI Treatment Courts,” although as Sand noted, it’s not actually a new court; it’s a new docket within the established court system. But adopting the common terminology, the DUI court is aimed at getting repeat offenders to clean up their act:

These people are convicted and sentenced. The bargain the judge strikes with the defendant is, after serving any mandatory jail required by the Legislature, and after or during a period of license suspension, the judge says, ‘If you are willing as a condition of your probation, to come back in front of me on a regular basis, every two weeks, and to account for the progress you have made in treatment, and to be held accountable if there has been a relapse, then you have earned the benefit of staying in the community.”

There is something about returning on a regular basis to the court to speak to a judge that makes a significant difference in helping people recover from an addiction.

Other states that have launched DUI courts have found that they actually save money on law enforcement — $2-4 for every dollar spent — by successfully rehabbing those repeat offenders.

As for the educational/training initiative, Corrections Commissioner Andrew Pallito noted that efforts to reduce prison populations in the past decade have resulted in a more than 50% decline in inmates 21 or younger. That means the remaining inmates are older and more difficult to rehabilitate.

But those are exactly the inmates that will need to be helped, if Corrections is to meet Legislative mandates to reduce recidivism over the next five years.

The solution, they hope: A merger of inmate education and job-training efforts designed to create a “seamless program” from sentencing to release. “Corrections education has been two different silos,” said WIlhelmina Picard, Director of Corrections Education. In the future, she said, inmates

…will leave with a professional portfolio, and they will have a transitional instructor to help them bridge the gap, whether it’s to an educational agency or to a workplace position.

The goal is to improve service while reducing program costs. It all sounded good at the presser; the tough part will be making it work, especially when dealing with the state’s most chronic and intransigent offenders.  

The title is an homage to a classic “Beyond the Fringe” skit, which is not only fall-down funny, it’s also a pretty good depiction of your typical anti-wind demo.

Something’s been bugging me for quite a while now, but it hadn’t quite crystallized until I read the following paragraph a few days ago in a VTDigger story about a three-year moratorium on new utility-scale wind projects in Vermont, proposed by Senators Joe Benning and Bob Hartwell:

The proposal comes one year after the Senate shot down a similar draft legislation Benning sponsored, which called for a two-year moratorium on projects 2.2 megawatts or greater. Since then, opposition to wind projects has grown, with a Montpelier demonstration in autumn drawing nearly 200 protestors.

The key phrase: “Since then, opposition to wind projects has grown.”

Really?

By what objective measure? What facts, what pattern supports that conclusion?

The only proof cited is a single demonstration that drew “nearly 200.” Is that really sufficient proof of the assertion? Seems pretty damn thin to me, even if VTDigger did wrongly choose to characterize that gathering as a “throng.”

I see no evidence of an anti-wind groundswell. What I see is a small group of very determined activists who’ve leveraged a great deal of media coverage. Let’s look at the available data.  

In May of 2012, a Castleton Polling Institute survey showed 70% support for wind power, 17% opposition, and 13% not sure.

During the 2012 campaign, Governor Shumlin made no secret of his support for wind energy. Randy Brock tried to capitalize on anti-wind sentiment, while anti-wind activist Annette Smith launched an ill-fated campaign for Governor — first as a Prog, then as a write-in. But in spite of Digger’s claim of growing opposition, the anti-wind crowd had no discernible effect on the November election. Smith drew no more than a few hundred votes, and Shumiln sailed to an easy victory.

It was, to return to that Beyond the Fringe skit, “not quite the conflagration we were banking on.”

None of this proves that anti-wind sentiment has stayed pretty much the same — a concern of a small minority — but it certainly runs counter to VTDigger’s assertion that opposition to wind power is on the rise.

I’ve been an observer of politics since the late 1960s, and I have never, ever seen a protest movement get so much coverage out of such small crowds. The notorious “throng” of 200 was, by far, the largest anti-wind gathering in Vermont. The others have attracted somewhere between a handful and a few dozen.

And every single one of them has attracted generous media coverage. As has every permit filing, every groundbreaking, every compliant of excessive noise or other alleged problems, every court case or threatened lawsuit, and (most absurd of all) every transportation of turbine parts toward construction sites.

So why has the media given so much coverage to such a small movement? I have a few theories.

— Many of the protests are picturesque. A demonstration on a mountain or in the forest makes pretty pictures and good video for the 6:00 news. Much better than the same number of people carrying signs in front of the Statehouse (yawn).

— There’s something Vermonty about the whole thing. Salts of the earth, sons of the Green Mountains, garbed in flannel, fleece, or down, seeking to preserve smallness against the assault of the Big. It speaks to some of our most cherished myths about ourselves and our state.

Yes, I said “myths.”

— Some reporters are favorably inclined to the anti-wind cause. I’ve heard this, off the record, from some media folks. It’s sometimes fairly obvious in their coverage (“throng,” indeed). And I’m sure the ill-advised prosecution of Chris Braithwaite didn’t exactly endear wind developers to the state’s journalists.

— Some media outlets tilt to the right, and the right tends to be anti-wind. Not because they’re environmentalists, but because (1) they’re pro-business and anti-climate change, (2) a lot of rich people own rural property and don’t want turbines messing up their views, and (3) they’ll use any handy issue to slam the Shumlin Administration.

— Monkey see, monkey do. If some media outlets are covering anti-wind protests, then others will follow. And actually, that’s the only objectively provable momentum in the anti-wind movement: the year 2012 saw an increase in coverage of anti-wind protests.

It also didn’t help that most Vermont environmental groups have treated anti-wind protests as John Kerry did the Swift Boaters in 2004 — ignoring rather than confronting. I was glad to see several of them (including VPIRG, VNRC, the Conservation Law Foundation, and the Vermont Sierra Club) come out in opposition to the wind moratorium last week, and I wonder where the hell they were all of last year. They should have been out front with their own positions and their own scientific information.

Another thing I’d like to see happen: I’d love it if the media actually examined the anti-wind movement. How many people are really involved? Where do anti-wind organizations like Energize Vermont get their money? They aren’t legally required to report their donations, donors, membership numbers, spending or budgets, and they haven’t volunteered to do so. Also, it’d be good if some enterprising reporter took a look at the “scientific studies” used by the anti-wind folks. Some anti-wind activists, and some alleged scientists, get their support from the fossil fuel industry.

And one final factor in the media’s overestimation of the anti-wind folks: The Comments section. Whenever anyone posts a story about wind energy, there’s a flurry of comments — many of them from the same small number of anti-wind hardliners. Online comments, however, are no reflection whatsoever of a website’s overall readership. The vast majority of online readers never post a comment, and most never even read the comments. But when a reporter or a media outlet sees a long string of comments, it tends to affect their thinking. In this case, makes them overestimate the size of the anti-wind movement.

Which is, I say again, small. And only as influential as their outsized reputation allows them to be.  

Congratulations to Chittendn County Senator and fellow blogger Philip “Phil” Baruth. 

Paul Heintz at Seven Days is reporting that this morning Philip was elected Senate Majority Leader by his fellow Democrats.  

Hometown boy makes good, going from a simple novelist and UVM prof to a VPR commentator and blogger, a State Senator, and now this.

 We've supported Philip's political rise over the years, and I can say that I'm glad he'll be in this leadership position. 

Here is my belated update on Shumlin’s Friday news conference. Toplines: New transparency measures make it much easier to get information about the workings of state government; Shumlin calls for greater public access to records of criminal cases and investigations; and he endorses Secretary of State Condos’ proposals for tougher reporting requirements on campaign spending and fundraising.

Governor Shumlin’s third news conference in three days was the shortest and most boring of them all. The subject matter was important, mind you — but there was no sizzle, as there was on Wednesday with the Jim Deeghan case or on Thursday with Shumlin playing rope-a-dope on gun control.

Nope, instead we were talking government transparency, and two new features of the State of Vermont website designed to fulfill Shumlin’s goal of maximum “accountability and transparency.”  Vermont has a poor record in this regard; in its most recent ranking, USPIRG had Vermont tied for 38th place (with Tennessee) for transparency in government spending, with a grade of D minus and a score of 51 on a scale of 1-100.

The Administration used USPIRG’s standards as its benchmark, which strikes me as a very good thing.

One of the new features is “The Governor’s Dashboard.” It allows people to find the latest information on Shumlin’s top priorities and goals, and measurables on progress made (or not). The second is “Spotlight,” which is a one-stop destination for details on the state’s finances — budget, spending, revenues, grants and contracts, and audit reports.

The information on Dashboard and Spotlight isn’t new, but these web features are designed to provide one-stop access, without having to visit numerous state websites or pore through stacks of documents.

Both websites look well-designed and very useful. The real test will be keeping them accurate and up-to-date.

After the jump: more on transparency, increasing access to criminal records, and tougher campaign finance reporting requirements.

Shumlin said that increasing transparency was one of his top goals from day one, and he expressed some disappointment with the pace of the effort.

Change in state government takes time,. And one of the frustrations I’ve had as Governor is not only to develop and implement the right policies, but to have the entire family of state government change with the times.

He added that the Legislature wasn’t as helpful as he’d hoped.

When I came in, I said, let’s sit down with the Legislature, and we’ll go over all the 200 and whatever it is exemptions to public records, figure out which ones make sense and which ones don’t. And that never really got the results I was hoping for.

Criminal records: Shumlin would also like to expand public access to records of criminal cases and investigations. The Governor’s legal counsel, Sarah London, explained the impetus for Shumlin’s proposal:

Part of our concern are a number of recent decisions by the Vermont Supreme Court where the court concluded that the existing language creates a categorial and indefinite exemption from the Public Records Act. That’s what this will most directly change.

Shumlin would like the Legislature to adopt existing federal standards for releasing such information, which state that “records of criminal investigation can only be withheld if disclosure would result in specific harm.”

There’s another advantage to accepting the federal guidelines: “There’s a large body of record around the federal guidelines that will clarify when something should be disclosed and when it can’t be disclosed.”

Campaign finance reporting: The Governor endorsed proposals from Secretary of State Jim Condos for increasing transparency in campaign finance reporting. Condos has called for increased frequency of campaign finance filings, meaningful penalties for failing to file on time, new technology to allow campaigns and organizations to file online, and new disclosure requirements for Super PACs such as Vermonters First.  

Shumlin called Condos’ proposals a meaningful response to the US Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which blocks states from imposing limits on campaign-related spending.

We can’t fix the damage of Citizens United until it’s overturned or until we pass a constitutional amendment, which I hope will happen quickly. But what we can do is make sure we have much quicker, more transparent knowledge of what is happening, who is giving to whom, and how it’s all falling out.

…As candidates, we’re often in the awkward position of wishing that information was more transparent but not having the mechanism, the technology at the Secretary of State’s office to get the information out. We sit there literally with pen in hand, filling out the forms. So we have a technology challenge that the Secretary of State is aware of, and I’m glad that he’s aware of it and that he’s committed to cleaning it up.

I was heartened by Shumlin’s endorsement of Condos’ agenda, especially given the Legislature’s complete failure to act on campaign finance reform in 2012. I was even more heartened by Shumlin’s acknowledgment that the reforms will carry a price tag. He promised to work with Condos and the Legislature to find money for the necessary technology.

All in all, it was a positive presser. And while it’s more fun to write about stuff that goes sideways, I’m glad to see Shumlin making such a seemingly strong commitment to openness in government. My sense is that he is honestly committed to the issue, and he deserves some credit for the progress made so far.  

What should we make of this?  

‘Digger is reporting that Entergy’s poor economic outlook might portend the closing of Vermont Yankee.  This, according to UBS Securities of Switzerland.  

They suggest there are strong indications that Entergy might consider resolving some cash-flow issues by closing both Yankee and another relic of happier times, NY Fitzpatrick.

On the face of it, this looks like good news; and the sooner the better.

But then there is that small matter of a decommissioning fund that is significantly inadequate to handle the thirty-year job of reclaiming Yankee from its toxic past.

“Entergy guidance clearly illustrates no cash generation from nukes”

If Entergy is hemorrhaging cash with little prospect of improvement on the nuclear horizon (something that comes as no surprise to readers of GMD); and if the company was prepared to drag the State of Vermont through multiple appeals only to pull the plug all by itself; that same perversity will undoubtedly see Entergy move heaven and earth in order to slide out from under its decommissioning obligations.

Soon dawns the certain knowledge that nuclear energy is anything but cheap and clean.

As if that isn’t enough provocative news on the nuclear front, ‘Digger carries another related story about Vermont and New York teaming up to ask the NRC to take a closer look at spent fuel storage at facilities on their soil.  

This request has been made in light of a 2011 court decision which effectively negated the long-standing rule allowing on-site storage of spent fuel, pending further investigation related to the findings from Fukushima.

The NRC wasted no time in extending VY’s operating license in the immediate wake of Fukushima.  Now that undo haste is coming back to haunt them.

‘Just another nail in the coffin of Entergy’s future commitment to Vermont Yankee.

The premier voice on environmental policy in Vermont, the Vermont Natural Resource Council, has just issued a position statement against the proposal for a moratorium on wind projects.

The opening lines of the statement recognize the good intentions of proponents for the three-year moratorium; however, the VNRC does not believe that the moratorium serves the best long-term interests of the state.

A point-by-point rundown of the reasons for this conclusion includes the urgency of the need to cut fossil fuel consumption; the responsible and timely efforts now underway in Vermont to develop effective guidelines for siting wind projects; and the fact that

Many of the environmental concerns commonly associated with wind energy development – including habitat fragmentation and stormwater runoff – are widely associated with a range of land use and development activities both at high and lower elevations that are subject to much less stringent – or no – state regulation and oversight.  A moratorium on wind energy facilities does not address the vast majority of land use impacts on forest and habitat fragmentation and water quality.

In conclusion, this summary observation is offered:

VNRC believes that carefully sited renewable energy generation facilities – including wind turbines – coupled with aggressive energy conservation and efficiency strategies, are a responsible response to climate change, peak oil and the need for an independent, clean energy economy.

The topic of wind has been a thorny one in Vermont, and will no doubt continue to be; but the VNRC can be credited for its effort to show the environmental community a path out of the thicket by reminding us that we can ill-afford to make an achievably better environment the victim of an impossibly perfect one.

The full text of the VNRC statement is reproduced here, “under the fold.”

VNRC opposes the proposed three-year moratorium on wind energy development in Vermont.  While VNRC appreciates that the motivations of the moratorium’s sponsors are well intentioned and grounded in a desire to protect Vermont’s mountaintops and ridgelines, a moratorium is not in the best long-term interest of the state. VNRC’s position is based on the following considerations:

Climate change and fossil fuel scarcity are major threats to Vermont and the world. Deployment of a full range of available renewable energy technologies, including well-sited wind power, is among the many important strategies to reduce those threats.

The Vermont Energy Generation Siting Policy Commission, appointed by Governor Shumlin this past October (at the urging of VNRC and other conservation and environmental organizations), is currently engaged in an aggressive process of identifying improvements to the siting and permitting process for energy facilities in the state.  Their work is scheduled for completion in April 2013.

There are no pending applications for wind generation facilities. There is a pending proposal for a meteorological wind testing tower (Newark), a very recently approved met tower application (Windham) and one potential project – Grandpa’s Knob – that would have to meet significant hurdles before it could proceed.

That all adds up to providing ample time for the Legislature to act on the recommendations of the Energy Siting Commission prior to any likely submission of a new application.

Wind energy can, and should, play an important role in meeting Vermont’s goal of 90% renewable energy by 2050. It is the most affordable, reliable renewable resource in Vermont, and the state is currently undertaking serious steps to mitigate or avoid the impacts of wind development.

Vermont can develop some upland areas for wind energy generation safely and without undue adverse environmental impacts.  Many of the environmental concerns commonly associated with wind energy development – including habitat fragmentation and stormwater runoff – are widely associated with a range of land use and development activities both at high and lower elevations that are subject to much less stringent – or no – state regulation and oversight.  A moratorium on wind energy facilities does not address the vast majority of land use impacts on forest and habitat fragmentation and water quality.

A moratorium on wind projects in Vermont – regardless of one’s view of such an initiative – more broadly undermines other efforts both here in Vermont and across the country to address climate change because it has the effect of minimizing the threat.  

VNRC believes that carefully sited renewable energy generation facilities – including wind turbines – coupled with aggressive energy conservation and efficiency strategies, are a responsible response to climate change, peak oil and the need for an independent, clean energy economy.