Sometimes the truest stuff is fiction …

Ridge Protectors, a citizens group opposed to a wind farm to be sited in Vermont’s North East Kingdom have filed an appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court to have the certificate of public good for the project invalidated.

The appeal contends that, among other things, the Public Service board found that UPC, the company developing the project, had failed to negotiate stably priced power contracts with Vermont utilities, and that, in the absence of these contracts, the project would not “provide and economic benefit to Vermonters sufficient to offset the project’s significant environmental impacts”.

The economic issue is one that is at the heart of the matter. One of the big selling points for the project, on the Massachusetts based UPC Wind’s Web site for the project is cheap local power. From the “power” tab, we are given a list of towns near Sheffield that “have shown strong interest in purchasing energy generated at the Sheffield project”. Another tab, under economic benefits states “Energy for Vermont utilities at competitive market rates”.

This is a bit disengenuous. As noted in the testimony before the public service board, and echoed in the final order itself:

“Unfortunately, the pricing terms of the Vermont Utilities power purchases do not capture one of the major economic advantages of renewable energy: the free, and thus stable, cost of the fuel. Instead the power contracts between UPC and Vermont utilities are largely indexed to regional power market prices, which are both highly volitile and expected to increase over time”.

Score a point for Ridge Protectors.

The Public Service Board does go on to address this in condition number three of the certificate of public good, which states that UPC shall “make all reasonable efforts to enter into diverse, long term, stably priced power contracts with Vermont Utilities”.

The ball bounces back across the court.

These contracts are to be produced prior to the commencement of construction. Has construction started without these contracts in place? If so, the Ridge Protectors appeal would seem like a sure win.

In either case, it seems that not only does the generation technology need to be developed to take advantage of clean power sources, the contracting and pricing mechanisms need development as well.

I was online checking my email and I noticed that CNN had called the winner in the Republican Caucuses in Nevada. I was a little surprised, as it was only 1:30 here on the east coast, and I wasn’t sure they’d even started, let alone finished.

Turns out CNN is calling this with 0% of the precincts reporting. They are calling it based solely on polling data.

I guess we no longer have to vote.

We ought all stay home, near the television, so we can answer the phone if a pollster calls, and to be sure to be watching as CNN tells us what our future is to be.

So, I am enrolled in the MBA program at Marlboro Graduate College - Managing for Sustainability. Studying Sustainable Business Practices. A two year program teaching the standard MBA nuts-and-bolts, but built from the ground up with Sustaiability in mind.

What is Sustainability? It means a lot of things to a lot of people. It can mean waste equals food design practices, or it can mean adding Social Responsibility to the mission statement - and then backing up the words with action. It can mean a Triple Bottom Line or Four Capital Accounting. It can mean buying fair trade coffee, a local carrot, or a Prius - or figuring out how to walk there.

It is a broad subject, and over the next two years I hope to be writing here quite a bit about it. I have started a new set of essays over in the sidebar, may add lists of books. Take a look, join the discussion - here or elsewhere.

[origionally posted at BlueHampshire]

Watching the debates with my New Hampshire host family, John Edwards really impressed us. He is passionate, he cares, and he has identified the problem — the corporate interests in Washington pushing their own interests at great cost to the public good. Edwards is a fighter, and it is clear he is going to go after them.

It is also clear that Obama has identified this as a root issue as well, and has been working to address it with his work in ethics reform. And, like Edwards, he is not taking dollars from the corporate interests, so he will not be beholden to them.

So what can I say to an Edwards supporter? On this issue we are very closely aligned.

Last night it became clear that the answer is in Obama’s deeper analysis of the situation. It is clear he is an architect, as well as a fighter. His roots in community organizing lead him to an analysis of the situation in terms of power. Where are we going to get the power to fight these interests that “have a strangle hold on Washington?”

We are going to get this power from organizing the American People. Obama is clear on this - he cannot do this without us. In fact, in his speeches he is repeatedly asking for us go get involved, to take back the government of this country. He is willing to build a coalition with republicans - not pander to republican leaders, but find republican voters who are disenchanted, for whom the neo-con promise has not come true.

This, I believe, is a critical difference. While Edwards has identified the problem, and is clearly a bulldog who will chew on the leg of corporate interests, his experience as a trial lawyer slots him into an “us-and-them” mentality. He will label them as bad guys and go after them. And, he will likely win a few.

Obama is seeking rather, to dismantle the structure that allows corporate interests to thrive. He is seeking to change the rules of the game, and he recognizes that in order to do this, he needs to build a broad power base. A power base rooted not in the politics of Washington, but in the ultimate source of political power in this country - the American People.

[origionally posted at VermontersforObama]

There is a lot being said about the health care plans proposed by Clinton and Obama - very strong language, with Clinton calling for the removal of Obama’s ads as his health care plan is not “Universal”.

But, let us look at the plans. Both are motivated by the desire to provide health care to all Americans in need. And, for better or worse, we do that in this country by providing insurance (though we must point out that there are some essential differences between health care and health insurance).

So, both plans seek to make insurance affordable to all. The difference, it would seem, focuses on a single point - The Clinton plan would Mandate that all had to buy insurance, whereas the Obama plan would Mandate insurance only for children.

Let us be clear. This from a very detailed analysis of the plans at slate.com, a good read

“Obama’s plan creates various mechanisms to make both private and public health insurance more readily available. Hillary’s plan does the same, but also creates an “individual mandate” requiring every American to buy health insurance.”

So, according to Clinton, what makes the plan “Universal” is that the government will be telling adults that they must purchase health insurance. That is what a “mandate” is, the government telling you what to do - not necessiarly providing the means, as we have found out so painfully through the unfunded mandates of the No Child Left Behind education legislation.

Let us leave aside for a moment the constitutionality of the notion that the Federal governement can compel it’s citizens to purchase something. There are, after all, some rough analogies with auto insurance.

So, I think this is, practically speaking, a small difference, given the amount of noise it has been generating.

Should either candidate’s plan succeed in making decent health insurance within the reach of all, making it truly affordable, this will be a great accomplishment, and almost all will take advantage of it. Close enough to universal either way.

But to me the difference speaks much more about the different views the candidates have regarding the American people, the take they have on the character of the citizens that they are running to serve, than it does about the details of policy.

I would think that the problem is not the lack of desire for health insurance. Most people I talk to want health insurance and they want it to be affordable. They are not looking for a reminder that this is what they ought to do, but some help on getting it done.

And a plan that focuses on the reminder as the key ingredient for universal health care misses the boat on the kind of people we are, and the kind of help we are asking for.

This difference runs deeper than the health care plan. Listing to Obama, the focus is on providing people with the tools they need to care for themselves. Providing people with the help they asked for - in this case affordable health insurance - so that those that asked for the help can take it. And, for those that that didn’t ask, or can’t or won’t pick up the tools … well, they don’t have to.

This approach respects individual circumstances, and is grounded in the faith that people can, given the opportunities, care for themselves and each other. This rings true for me. This reflects the people I know, the folks I see working together to help each other and keep the community strong - regardless of political persuasion.

So back to the heat the Clinton campaign is generating over “Universal”. Not many would turn down affordable insurance, regardless of the presence of a mandate. Truly affordable insurance would effectively be universal. So it seems to me that the fight that Clinton is waging is for the exclusive right to the term “Universal”, It is not so much a debate about policy as much as staking out a claim to a powerful buzz word, much as big corporations seek to protect their trademarks.

Universal plans have come and gone in Washington since the days of Harry Truman. The one thing we need is someone to get everyone — Republicans, Democrats, health insurance companies, doctors, nurses — to the table like Barack did when he fought for health insurance for 150,000 more in IL. All the candidates have good policies — Barack can get it done.

This just in from Jack Black …

Perhaps you are unaware that one of the world’s most remarkable harmonica virtuosi is a young Canadian fellow with a yarmulke on his head. This Saturday, the amazing neo-klezmer band, Shtreiml, will be at the Radio Bean. I cannot recommend this band highly enough. Please, don’t miss seeing these world-class musicians play in a tiny room for donations. Oh, and some of the members of Inner Fire District will be playing an opening set. This will commence at 9:00 pm. Come, and tip generously! “Shtreiml”, by the way, is the word for those big, expensive fur hats that some Hasidim wear. Also, go see them at the Middle Earth Music hall in Bradford on the 15th.