The Esty Death Watch

'DEEP' DOO DOO?

In case you missed it, there's a blockbuster story by Jon Lender in this morning's Hartford Courant (posted on courant.com yesterday) about the commissioner of the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) who failed to disclose that he made hundreds of thousands in consulting fees from the parent corporation of CL&P, even as he intervened in favor of CL&P in a regulatory matter.

I'd say Gov. Malloy has done an OK job in filling his cabinet since he took over the reigns of state government in January. But this is really appalling. In his work as a consultant who helps businesses become better environmental citizens, the former Yale professor did so much work in the private sector that he had to recuse himself in advance from having anything to do with 26 organizations that might have matters before DEEP. That in itself should have raised all kinds of red flags.

But the fact that he never disclosed this bombshell is disgraceful:

State energy and environment Commissioner Daniel C. Esty — who sparked some official concern in recent weeks by halting state regulators' deliberations in a multimillion-dollar application by Connecticut Light & Power Co. — was paid $205,000 as a consultant from 1997 to 2005 by CL&P's parent company, Northeast Utilities.

Why did he fail to disclose this important relationship with the state's largest electrical utility when he was hired? Esty said via email, which was apparently the only way he would communicate with Lender, "NU is not on my recusal list because my relationship with that company ended more than five years ago. In addition, the senior managers and people I worked with at NU have all since left that company and this is an entirely new slate of personnel there with whom I had no business relationship."

My BS meter shot up as I read those words. Come on. The appearance of a conflict is still there. Might Esty want to re-establish his relationship with NU after his tenure at DEEP is over? After all, there's more money where that came from. Does he have recent clients whose businesses currently depend on the financial well-being of NU? Might Esty have failed to disclose his NU consulting fees because he feared it would be the straw that would have broken his candidacy for DEEP commissioner back in January?

The hiring of Esty, who was seen as a rising star, was touted as perhaps Malloy's best appointment. Now the thin-skinned educator looks like a ticking time-bomb. Malloy's young governorship faces a serious test. Worse yet, with all those corporate relationships on Esty's resume, will there be other revelations about past relationships and more opportunities for The Professor to exercise poor judgment in failing to disclose them?

In the best tradition of Tim Noah, the Estimable Esty Death Watch has begun.

P.S. Oh, and of course there's also this conflict of interest on the part of Chris Donovan. However, unlike the appointed Esty, voters can always send Donovan packing if they don't like the congressional candidate's role in congressional redistricting.

Energy: Love It and Hate It

Click here for my latest for CTNewsJunkie.com.

Ever wonder why we can't solve our energy problems in this country? Look no further than ourselves. We love energy consumption but hate inconveniences such as ... oh, power lines, for example.

It’s a refresher course that plays out every 20 years or so.

In the wake of Hurricane Irene, hundreds of thousands of cranky Connecticut ratepayers without power — some for days on end — practically look like they’re ready to storm the Capitol. Or, better yet, the headquarters of Connecticut Light & Power.

NYS Greenies Want To Ban Everything?

The Green Party of New York questions the enviro creds of newly elected Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Fair enough. Maybe he could be doing more. Who knows?

But get this:

On Earth Day, the Green Party of New York called upon Gov. Andrew Cuomo to ban hydrofracking for natural gas, shut down nuclear power plants and undo a delay on a sales ban on outdoor wood boilers.

Now, if you shut down two of the state's nuclear power plants, effectively halt new natural gas exploration and outlaw heating by wood boilers (a renewable resource), what exactly is left?

I'm sure even members of the Green Party want their lights to work when they turn them on. How would NYS replace the enormous amounts of electrical power that would be lost if the two nuke plants were shut down? 

Natural gas? Nope, we can't have that because extraction techniques are too risky and besides, the NYS Green Party wants to ban new construction of gas-powered plants anyway. Large hydroelectric projects? No, they don't like them either.

They're big on wind, solar and bio-mass, but those have drawbacks, too. They're also big on conservation, which I agree should be part of the equation, but the kinds of cuts in consumption they advocate would likely have significant economic consequences.

So what are we left with when all is said and done? A lot of hot air directed at Cuomo, that's what. As such, it's hard to take the Green Party seriously. Is it any wonder that they only have seven elected officials, all on the local level, scattered across the state?

Fed Up With Nukes? Tax 'Em To Death!

Update: Hurray. Gov. Malloy has come out against this particular tax.

* * * * * *

Yes, literally. A bill pending in the Connecticut General Assembly would impose a tax on generators of electricity that use coal, oil and nuclear power. Of the $340 million the tax is expected to raise, $330 million would come from the company that owns Millstone, the state's only remaining nuclear plant.

That's right. This amounts to a special tax on one company and one form of energy (it should be noted that Gov. Malloy's proposed tax on the plant sought to raise only $33 million, fully one-tenth of the amount that would be raised if this bill passes).

In response, Millstone's parent company, Dominion Resources, has threatened to close the plant. To give you an idea of how devastating the closure would be, The Day reports:

Dominion spokesman [Ken] Holt said Millstone directly employs 1,080 people and 350 supplemental personnel. The facility is responsible for roughly $1.2 billion annually in economic benefits to Connecticut.

Now it's entirely possible, as Rep. Vickie Nardello (D-Prospect) suggested, that Dominion is merely employing a "fear tactic." Still, think for a moment what kind of message this confiscatory tax would send to businesses that might want to relocate to Connecticut. Sure, natural gas and other kinds of electricity generation would be exempt from the tax, for the time being.

But how long would it take before grasping lawmakers started eying the treasuries of companies that produce other forms of energy? Would you want to locate a business, any kind of business, in a state that has this kind of arbitrary tax policy?

Perhaps Rep. Nardello, who chairs the Energy and Technology Committee, might want to consider that before bringing the bill to a vote. Nardello, you might recall, advocated strongly last year for an energy bill that called for the state to create at least 25 megawatts of wind power.

But now that an energy company has proposed to put two industrial wind turbines in her own town, Nardello says she supports legislation calling for the state to enact regulations on those devices, despite the fact that the Connecticut Siting Council, which already regulates the placement of wind turbines, has said the legislation isn't necessary.

I thank Christine Stuart of CTNewsJunkie.com, where I am an op-ed columnist, for alerting her readers to this development today in her daily "Morning Coffee and Politics" email. I love Christine's brief commentary that accompanied her email alert:

Is the committee playing "bad cop," so the company will "happily" accept the governor's alternative proposal? Or is Nardello simply on a crusade to revert us back to a simpler time when we all just burned wood and candles? Oh wait, there's a bill to ban that too.

The Vexing Search For Alternatives

Continuing the discussion from the earlier thread on the Japanese nuclear disaster, I offer an example of how hard it is to find alternatives to atomic power if we abandon it.

Hydro Quebec, the government-owned utility behemoth to our north that supplied my electricity when I was in college, has proposed to use existing rights-of-way, and build new ones, to bring electricity into the New Hampshire and national grids. Yes, that's right. Lots of clean and renewable energy generated by large hydro-electric projects up on the James Bay and points beyond.

The proposed project is running into intense opposition from property owners whose land might be seized, as well as residents worried about the diminished viewshed and the resulting effect on tourism, especially in northern New Hampshire.

Opponents in the Granite State  have created a website called "Live Free Or Fry" -- a satirical play on the state's libertarian motto. I understand their worries. No one wants to look at the transmission lines and their towers, which in this case will be on the order of 135 feet tall. Others don't consider hydroelectric power to be renewable and insist that the project will inhibit the growth of the true green energy sector.

I can especially sympathize if your livelihood depends on tourism and you honestly believe the lines will keep people away from the White Mountains. Moreover, some residents are apoplectic about the possibility that the right-of-way could be taken by eminent domain. But I'm sure that even if the ROW was being condemned by the state of New Hampshire instead of the province of Quebec, the protesters would be yelling just as loudly.

The point is: How are we ever going to replace nuclear power if we can't even agree on allowing a muscular form of carbon-free energy to flow through rural portions of this nation? How will we break from our dependence on fossil fuels and all their drawbacks — oil (carbon), coal (particulates) and natural gas (hydrofracking) — if we struggle mightily with allowing scalable wind and solar generation?

The answer is: We're stuck with what we have unless our attitudes change. Period.

No Nukes, Again

With only a few days separating us from the nuclear disaster in Japan, is now a good time to start a discussion about whether we should expand the role of nuclear power in our energy plans? I don't think so.

Why? Because the tendency will be to react more on emotion than reason. That's just human instinct.

Fortunately, some lawmakers agree with me. When asked if the Asian disaster would dampen enthusiasm for nuclear power in the U.S, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said:

"This discussion reminds me, somewhat, of the conversations that were going on after the BP oil spill last year," McConnell said during an interview on Fox News Sunday. "I don’t think right after a major environmental catastrophe is a very good time to be making American domestic policy."

On Meet The Press, Sen. Chuck Schumer mostly agreed, too:  "I'm still willing to look at nuclear. As I’ve said, it has to be done safely and carefully."

Tell that to Eugene Robinson, who penned a column today that labeled nuclear power "a uniquely toxic technology" and "a bargain with the devil." I suspect more such pieces will be published (if they haven't already) in the days to come.

All energy sources carry some risk. Oil and coal emit greenhouse gases (the latter spews a lot of particulate matter as well), while natural gas is cleaner but still puts carbon into the atmosphere. Wind and solar will never provide the kind of muscle we need to power the world's economy (plus, wind and solar farms take up huge amounts of land to generate relatively little power).

So what do we do? Of the non-carbon-generating energy sources, nuclear power provides some 70% of it. Should we do away with it and replace it with what?

Obviously, it makes little sense to build nuclear plants in areas that are prone to earthquakes and the resulting tsunamis, as northeast Japan is. And any plant built near the sea should have its back-up generator's diesel tanks protected from a wash-out.

As horrible as this tragedy is, we need to keep it in perspective. About 60,000 motorists are killed every year on U.S. roads and bridges. That's literally millions of people over the last several decades, but I don't hear any talk of closing down our highway system.

Tilting At Snow ... And Windmills

http://www.flickr.com/photos/winteridgefarm2/339210442/

If this ghastly snow keeps piling up, maybe we'll look like this place on the Tug Hill Plateau.

Located between the Adirondacks and Lake Ontario, Tug Hill averages more than 200 inches of snow annually. Some of the older camps there actually have second-floor entrances for use in the winter

At an elevation of more than 2,000 feet, the plateau is also quite windy. Therefore, Tug Hill has become a haven for cross-country skiers, snowmobilers and ... energy production. And with almost 200 turbines, The Maple Ridge Wind Farm is the largest such facility in the eastern U.S.

Even in this very remote area, the wind farm generated considerable opposition before it became operational five years ago. It reminded me that, for all its promise, "green energy" has a long way to go before it can become a serious player.

You see, wind and solar power require massive amounts of land to produce relatively little energy, leading to what some environmentalists call "energy sprawl."

So, if the burning of fossil fuels should eventually be phased out because of greenhouse emissions and we want to avoid energy sprawl, what does that leave us with in terms of energy sources?

Nuclear power is where it leaves us, my friends. I know, I know. That's not perfect either. But what other options do we really have? What source can provide us with the energy we need to power the world's economy and not emit greenhouse gases or mar the landscape?

Now, if we can only muster the will to let it happen. Then again, maybe there is hope after all ...