This is Mayor John Hollar’s report to the voters of Montpelier on the current status of the district heating plan. It’s being reposted with his permission.

Anyone who is concerned for the future of sustainable energy in the capital city is encourage to call the city councilors who voted against the project to ask them to support the project.

At its meeting on August 22, the Montpelier City Council voted 2-4 to withdraw from participation with the state in the district heat project.  I was deeply disappointed in that vote.  I want to share my thoughts on the project, including where things stand and where we go from here.

I have strongly supported the district heat project since its inception, although I have approached it from a practical perspective since becoming mayor in March.  The project provides numerous environmental and societal benefits, but I believe it must stand on sound financial footing.  I made clear to city staff in March that I would only support the project if we could demonstrate a solid economic case for continuing.

Since March, City Manager Bill Fraser and many other city staff have worked diligently to close a $1 million funding gap by expanding the customer base.  As of last week, the city has received commitments from Vermont Mutual Insurance Company, the General Services Administration (Post Office building), the County government and several large private property owners.  The school district has committed to including Union Elementary School.  Each of these users have independently evaluated the economics of the project and have concluded that it would provide value.  Many other users have expressed interest in the project and are likely to sign up if the city commits to moving forward.

As presented to the City Council, the project has a funding safety net $1,127,986, or 34.30%.  Moreover, the city could segment the project to reduce costs if needed.  These contingencies provide a substantial cushion in the event that project bids exceed current estimates.  While all projects have risks, the likelihood that costs will exceed revenues appears to be extraordinarily small.

The benefits of the project are well-known and obvious:

It would allow our community to minimize its dependence on fossil fuels for heating;

It would provide an economical and stable source of heat for decades to come;

It would rely on a local fuel source, further minimizing environmental impacts and providing broader economic benefits.

The Council members who voted against the project have expressed three primary objections:

The economic risks to the city are too great, since we will not know our actual costs until we receive bids in November;

the city has not demonstrated an ability to maintain its existing infrastructure; and

the state has not been a good partner in the project.

I am working with these councilors and the state to address these concerns.  I am hopeful that we will reach a solution that allows the project to go forward as planned.

For those wanting to learn more about this project, please visit the City’s web site, and read the City Manager’s excellent report to the council on August 22, 2012.    

You've undoubtedly heard that the Montpelier City Council voted 4-2 Wednesday night to abandon the district heating plan that Montpelier city government has been working on for the past nine years. The vote count is important, because if there had been one more “yes” vote Mayor John Hollar would have voted yes to break the tie.

This is a call for all Montpelier voters to contact their city councilors and urge them to reconsider this vote, hold another meeting, and vote to go forward with this visionary plan.

There is a lot of information available about the plan, but to me some of the key points are:

1. The plan will not add to the city budget. Funding comes from an $8,000,000 federal grant and money the city is already budgeting for heating oil.

2. True, we don't know the precise cost for fuel and operating costs over the years, but we can say with confidence that fuel oil will continue to go up. This is a plan that protects Montpelier against future price shocks.

3. The new district heating plan is good for economic development. Many downtown property owners have already expressed interest in getting their heat from the plant, and the price stability that the plant will provide will be good for downtown businesses.

4. Montpelier voters have strongly supported this plan every time it has been put to a vote. Reconsidering the council's decision and moving ahead supports local democracy.

5. The plant supports local workers and wood chip providers. Why should we be spending our fuel dollars overseas when we can spend them right here in Vermont?

If you want to learn more here's an excellent source of information.

Please contact your city councilor and ask him to change his vote on district energy:

 Andy Hooper (District 1), 8 Winter Street, 229-1237, thooper@montpelier-vt.org

Tom Golonka (District 1), 64 Meadowbrook Drive, 223-3657, tgolonka@montpelier-vt.org

Thierry (pronounced “Terry”) Guerlain (District 2), 15 McKinley Street, 229-5686, tguerlain@montpelier-vt.org

Alan Weiss (District 3), 205 Forest Drive – Unit #1, 229-0068, aweiss@montpelier-vt.org

By which I refer to those multi-state, multi-million-dollar settlements between state Attorneys General and misbehaving corporations. Bill Sorrell has offered two major reasons for his re-election: Experience, and the millions he’s brought into state coffers by participating in lawsuits against big corporations.

And it’s true; in each of the last two years, Vermont has gained about $40 million from settlements — the bulk of it from the big enchilada of multi-state settlements, the deal with the tobacco industry, which was signed 15 years ago but still brings in about $33 million a year.

But I have two questions about these settlements and how much credit Sorrell deserves.

First, and simplest: How long can he continue to claim credit for something that happened long ago? The tobacco settlement was signed shortly after Sorrell took office. Previously I have questioned whether he could have possibly played a significant role in a complicated deal that had been in the works before he even became AG. Now I question whether he can rightly claim perpetual credit for an action he took 15 years ago. I’m not saying he deserves no credit; I’m just questioning how much he really deserves. (The tobacco money will continue to flow indefinitely as long as sizeable numbers of people continue to smoke. Which, it should be noted, gives the states a perverse incentive NOT to fund anti-smoking programs; if people stopped smoking, they’d stop raking in the bucks.)

Second, and more fundamental: Are all these multi-state, mega-million-dollar settlements actually a good thing? Sure, it gooses the states’ bottom lines, and it does provide some measure of punishment for corporate misdeeds. But rarely does the settlement come close to equaling the profits made through said misdeeds. And the settlements close the door on further prosecution. In effect, the Attorneys General have put a price tag on corporate misbehavior. And that price is often very affordable.  

As a bonus, since the settlements are struck out of court, corporate documents aren’t entered into the public record, and executives escape the necessity of testifying under oath. Confidentiality agreements are often part of the package, which means no one ever sees the evidence, and none of us can make our own judgments on the corporation or the vigilance of public officials.

Since the tobacco deal, state AGs have pursued a number of similar cases, and have often won significant dollars. Usually, the money has not gone to help victims; it’s been rolled straight into state’s general funds. Multistate settlements have become a reliable revenue stream for states, helping them balance budgets without raising taxes or fees. Which is why so many Republican AGs are happy to participate; they’re not normally the most anti-business of folks, but they see this as a win for their states and a manageable loss for corporations.

Furthermore, the people who actually bear the cost of these settlements aren’t the perpetrators — the executives who pursued or approved illegal or unethical acts, and who evade any personal responsibility in these settlements. The costs are borne by shareholders, who suffer reduced profits and stock prices. That’s not just Warren Buffett; that’s any American with stock or mutual fund investments or a retirement plan.

In the short run, these settlements are a win-win all around. Corporations get out from under the threat of prosecution, AGs look like heroes, and governors get a bit of budgetary relief. In the long run, I question whether they’re good public policy. The states and misbehaving corporations have implicity established an unhealthy relationship. States depend on continued corporate malfeasance, and have a financial incentive to loosen regulation and oversight. Corporations have a financial incentive to break the law, because they know that even if they get caught, they can pay a penalty and still come out ahead on the deal.

So I ask Bill Sorrell and his fellow AGs: Are these multistate settlements really a good thing? Are there better ways for state Attorneys General to spend their time and resources?

I wrote this piece after reading an article in The Economist about a settlement between the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) and Standard Chartered, a London-based multinational bank. SC had been accused of widespread financial dealings with Iran, in violation of international sanctions. It settled the case out-of-court by paying a $340 million fine to the state of New York. The illicit dealings with Iran amounted to $250 billion. The fine is undoubtedly a fraction of SC’s total profits on its Iran business. The Economist painted a picture of a morally tainted win-win:

The gratuitous anti-Cuomo swipe aside, I have to agree with The Economist’s portrayal. And it’s not a pretty picture. Granted, this isn’t a multistate settlement, but it’s a good example of the questionable ethics and efficacy of such deals. It made me stop and think. And it made me wonder whether I want my public officials to continue making deals like this.  

There are a couple of interesting developments in the AG's race today, both in the Burlington Free Press.

 First is the endorsement. Following the lead of the St. Albans Messenger, Stowe Reporter, and Waterbury Reporter, the Free Press endorsed TJ Donovan.

The question is, where has Sorrell, the engaged campaigner, been all these years?

Former Gov. Howard Dean characterized the attorney generals’ primary as a choice between the challenger’s ambition vs. the incumbent’s experience.

Donovan’s ambition is built on his six years as Chittenden County state’s attorney, the county prosecutor.

Donovan presents an alternative to the comforts of incumbency.

Donovan will bring a new energy to the office.

The Free Press editorial board recommends T.J. Donovan in the Democratic primary for Vermont attorney general.

Especially coming in the face of a survey claiming that Sorrell has a huge lead over Donovan, one more endorsement from a major newspaper is a big deal. Which leads to the question: what is the Burlington Free Press talking about in its news pages? A couple of weeks ago we published a diary in which our message to the two candidates was:

Hey, guys: Stop whining. Sincerely, jv

The point was that they should stop all the nonsense about PAC coordination, absentee ballot bullshit, and everything else that really doesn't address the issues in the race. We were right.

So the biggest story in today's Free Press is all about PAC coordination, campaign finance, absentee ballot bullshit, and everything but the issues in the race. After exhaustively reviewing the minutiae of all these issues, the Free Press pretty much concludes that there's not much there, or at least no much definitive evidence on any one of these points.

Around here, that looks like the definition of “not a story”.

Just because it's what the candidates are talking about that doesn't mean they should get the platform to do it. Come on, Freeps! There are a few days left to talk about the issues.

Two interesting looks at Montpelier, starting first with yesterday’s online New York Times article called 36 Hours In Montpelier, Vt:

The Times people were in Montpelier from late Friday afternoon to late Sunday morning, covering a lot of ground, including the Capital, Kellogg-Hubbard Park, the Mountaineers‘ game, various restaurants, stores, and our Greenwich Village-like Friday night nightlife (The Black Door & Charlie Os), and our ‘special’ drawing cards--The Farmers’ Market and The Three Penny Taproom.

The article will appear in this Sunday’s TRAVEL SECTION of the Times, along with color photos, and all-in-all makes Montpelier look like the coolest State Capital (and the smallest and quaintest) in the country to visit.  Hopefully, this article will give Montpelier a much needed boost (or kick in the ass) as Times readers across the World plan their vacations around a trip to the town that hosts Three Penny’s eclectic line of 24 draft beers and Charlie Os cheap $2.00 pint Pabst drafts.  God, let us hope so, because Montpelier definitely needs a boost (and a kick).

Now I come to the kick part:

I called Montpelier Alive this morning and the woman there knew of no contact the Times people had with Montpelier Alive relating to their visit to town.  She hadn’t read the article online, and even asked me if Montpelier Alive had been mentioned in it.  ???  Hmmm…not good, Montpelier Alive.  Too bad the Times people didn’t come on a Thursday during lunch time to see your great work in discouraging and marginalizing people with your HUGE Smoke Free Event signs.  Perhaps the Times folks would have snapped a photo of your Smoke Free signs, and, oops, cancel those vacation plans, Roseanne!  And wouldn’t it have been a pisser if they got wind that downtown Montpelier was in danger of losing The Capital City Farmers‘ Market to Vermont College?  Hey, Roseanne, tell Cindy Sheehan to cancel her vacation plans too!

Well, thank God the regulars were open for business–they carried the town.  No thanks to the Montpelier City Council or Montpelier Alive.

Now, speaking of the Montpelier City Council, did you see that those nitwits voted 4 to 2 to withdraw from the District Energy Project.*  Guess the Yuppies up around Vermont College and their other upscale enclaves–the people who really run this town (into the ground)–don’t want biomass soot on their SUVs or in their swimming pools.  Wouldn’t want riff-raffy energy projects also creating a revitalized town–people would be parking all over the place, doncha-know?

This means also, and most importantly, that the Montpelier City Council just possibly blew off the 8 MILLION $$$ Federal GRANT for the town’s participation in the project.  And yes, the Montpelier School District would have been linked-up to the District Energy Project.  Well, shucks…what’s 8 million bucks?  We’re not gonna let them goddamn smokers have their own big biomass puffer polluting our nice peaceful, pure, quiet, and almost Dead environment.

Great work, Montpelier Alive and Montpelier City Council!  Good thing those Times people came on a weekend.  (You didn’t have a clue, did you?)  In fairness, City Manager Frazer and Mayor Hollar were in favor of Montpelier’s participation in the District Energy Project, but they didn’t get to vote on it.  A Special Meeting MAY be held on this next week, but don’t hold your breath (especially if you’re smoking).  

Folks, do you think something’s just maybe more than a little F’d-Up about how Montpelier is run?

Well, at least the Times piece focuses a lot on some unique specifics that Montpelier downtown merchants have to offer.  Did you know that Fred Wilber at Buch Spieler has copies of the very first FUGS album?  And that Pamela Root, owner of That’s Life Soup, uses 500 different recipes for her four soups per day?  Yes.  It’s true.  Montpelier IS COOL.  Too bad the COOL FOLKS don’t run things.

I’m going to go to Three Penny Taproom this afternoon for a nice cold dry white wine, then to Buch Spieler and look into this FUGS album, then to Charlie Os where I will be joined by Roseanne In 2012 for a $2.00 Pabst.  And take a few smoke breaks.

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.

(*If any of you Little Dems defend this atrocity, well, I guess we’ll know who your friends are.)

Endorsement Update: The Repubican-leaning St. Albans Messenger has endorsed TJ Donovan for Attorney General. Unfortunately, Emerson Lynn, the paper’s publisher and the author of the editorial endorsement, does not post editorials online. Here’s a few of his pithier statements:

But after 15 years with Mr. Sorrell as the state’s Attorney General, it’s time for a change. Mr. Donovan is the better choice. […] Mr. Donovan has already provided Vermonters with new approaches to old problems […] he is capable of communicating at a level that will benefit Vermonters directly. He is one among us and looks at problems at a community level, which is where he lives and works. […]

Mr. Donovan’s [Rapid Intervention Community Court] program is an example of the productivity that comes from his work at the grassroots level. […] He engages.

Lynn discusses the issue of Sorrell’s recent high profile failures, and says that despite the millions of taxpayer dollars the losses will cost the state, the blame attached to Sorrell for losing is misplaced. He continues:

Here is the important difference between Mr. Sorrell and Mr. Donovan: Mr. Donovan says he would not argue a case before the Supreme Court. He’s not an appellate lawyer and hasn’t the necessary experience or expertise. He would hire someone who did. Mr. Sorrell, whose legal background is comparable to Mr. Donovan’s, said Vermonters expected the AG to have the “guts” to argue before the court.

It’s not about guts, it’s about winning. It’s not about ego, it’s about leadership. It’s smarter to hire the best legal talent and let them work than it is to push forward with a substandard skill set, reducing the chances of victory. It’s often cheaper as well.

That is the level judgment Vermonters should expect from their Attorney General, which Mr. Donovan exhibits, and Mr. Sorrell does not.

[…] It’s a choice [of] which candidate offers Vermont the best ideas going forward and which candidate can best engage with Vermonters in a way that encourages their participation and makes our communities better, safer places to live.

That candidate is T.J. Donovan.

Donovan has had my support since he got into the race, and I’ve already cast my vote for him. I hope you will too.  

Just a quick note here, because today's news brings something I wasn't really expecting: results of a survey before next Tuesday's primary. I was just talking about this with a friend this morning, and we agreed that they wouldn't do a poll and release it a week before the primary, but obviously we were wrong.

The headline is that the incumbents still have the advantage, and in the one contested primary Bill Sorrell still holds a comfortable lead,  44%-24%, over TJ Donovan.

If you look at the internals, though, you learn something more: that lead comes from a grand total of  223 registered voters. That's right, registered voters, not likely voters.

This is going to be a light turnout election, though, which means that GOTV is going to play a big role in what happens. Bill Sorrell is touting the results of this new poll, as well he might. On the other hand, the test next Tuesday is likely to come down to who has the better organization on the ground, and from here it seems that Donovan has the edge on organization.

We'll see soon enough.

Yesterday was my thirty-sixth wedding anniversary. Contrary to the male stereotype I've never forgotten it, and I bet most men haven't either.

I'm not trolling for compliments or congratulations; I've already gotten “likes” or good wishes from over a hundred people on Facebook, and I appreciate all of them.

I do want to point something out, though. The opponents of marriage equality say that we hate marriage, or we want to destroy it, and on the day I celebrate my anniversary I can say that nothing is farther from the truth. The truth is that supporters of marriage equality value marriage, probably more than the opponents. We value the support and strength that it gives us, and we can't see why other people shouldn't have the same chance.

We all know an election is near because roadsides are awash with campaign signs and our mailboxes are flooded with flyers. While I had to think about my vote for some positions, I knew what exactly how to vote for Vermont’s next Attorney General.

My husband Arnie Gundersen and I unequivocally endorse TJ Donovan for Attorney General in the August 28th Democratic primary, and each one of us has already voted for TJ.

As a mediator and paralegal, I am deeply committed to a restorative justice model that involves the community in the corrections’ process.  When I first met TJ Donovan in 2006 during his Chittenden County State’s Attorney campaign, he made some impressive promises. I liked his creative ideas, but honestly wondered if TJ would follow through once in office or like many other politicians in Vermont, simply look the other way.  

TJ delivered on those promises by involving the stakeholder community in a task force that looked at Chittenden County’s criminal justice system through a new lens, sought grant money and made organizational changes to assure that transition did happen.

Vermont is a brand. It symbolizes clean air and water, healthy food, and a safe place to live.  Powerful corporations leaking toxic substances into our waterways and aquifers and pushing GMO’s are thwarting Vermont’s laws and regulations.

Arnie’s nuclear safety and engineering expert testimony keeps Fairewinds working with national and international attorneys every day.  We know first hand that law is nuanced and attorneys require skill and perseverance, and that is why we voted for TJ Donovan as Vermont’s next Attorney General. We want an Attorney General who puts Vermonters, their needs, and their laws ahead of corporate malfeasance.

Your vote in this primary assures a quality candidate like TJ Donovan in the November election.  Vote today.

If you are undecided, visit www.donovan2012.com to learn more about TJ and why he is the only choice for Vermont’s next AG.

*******************

More below the fold.

Remember Town Meeting Day?

    It is a Vermont tradition to exercise your right to vote, and if you ignore this primary, you are letting others choose your candidate(s). The August 28th Primary is no less important than town meeting day because your ‘primary vote’ chooses the candidates for the November ballot.  

We voted for TJ Donovan for Attorney General and ask you to do the same.    

In closing, I would like to share this clarification:

I am the president and founder of Fairewinds Associates (2003) in Burlington and the founding director of Fairewinds Energy Education 501c3 non-profit, founded in 2008.

Arnie Gundersen is the nuclear engineer who served on the Vermont Yankee Oversight Panel, consulted to the Vermont State Legislature, and testifies worldwide regarding nuclear safety issues. He is the chief engineer for Fairewinds.

Fairewinds Energy Education nonprofit is recognized around the world for its nuclear safety work. View our work at www.fairewinds.org Following the Fukushima Daiichi accident in 2011, the Huffington Post called Fairewinds the ‘go to site’ for nuclear safety information.

Our book Fukushima Daiichi: The Truth and the Future was number one on the amazon.jp science list for months. The book has sold more than 30,000 copies in Japan, and I am currently working on the English version.