CONNECTICUT

Conn. already eclipsed on shared solar

New Haven Register

Aug. 16

The movement of light is the fixed definition for speed.

The movement of Connecticut is pretty much the opposite.

In recent years, about the only way Connecticut lands before New York and Massachusetts is alphabetically.

There may be no better evidence of this than how these neighbors have pursued the concept of shared solar energy.

Shared solar feeds power into the electric grid that comes from a facility supported by subscribers who lack the option of panels where they reside. It’s the solar version of community gardens, which benefit those without soil.

Massachusetts is at the head of the pack, operating a reported 317 megawatts of shared solar with another 554 megawatts being readied.

Connecticut, meanwhile, has been quibbling over a pilot program for five years. Though lawmakers approved a shared program last year, it is capped at 25 megawatts of solar per year for six years, and does not permit rollover of unused power into the next year. It’s a fraction of what is permitted in other states, many of which do not use caps.

Some of the players in the game never wanted a pilot program, but Connecticut lawmakers want to first study the program in miniature. Of course, they could get a pretty good idea by looking to more aggressive states.

Who would be opposed to sharing solar energy?

Those pesky lobbyists from traditional energy platforms for one. Homeowners have consistently expressed interest, but a lot of dwellings are not suitable for solar.

A lot, in this case, is defined as about 80 percent.

This can be due to trees providing shade, or because the roof faces in the wrong direction. Or simply because the interested party rents.

It’s understandable that utilities would resist embracing a community solar future. They get less money from these customers, while still needing to maintain poles and wires.

To Connecticut’s credit, some lawmakers have pressed to ensure greater access for low- and moderate-income subscribers. Developers are not exactly known for creating opportunities to assist low-income residents. If they did, more would exceed mandated minimums when they build housing. Shared solar projects do not yield big money.

The Connecticut Mirror’s Jan Ellen Spiegel, who has closely covered the issue, pointed out that as shared solar inches toward regulatory approval, pushback has been unabated from all quarters.

The Department of Energy and Environmental Protection’s final plans presented to the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority drew criticism for being too restrictive.

PURA has until Jan. 1 deadline to approve the program. Don’t expect them to speed up the process by hitting the deadline early.

To draw competitive bidders, Connecticut is going to have to start thinking bigger. It also needs to prove it is serious about addressing climate change. One of the pilots is being used by the Bloomfield Board of Education, which could become an appropriate model.

Make no mistake, shared solar will reach us, even if it’s hardly at the speed of light.

Online: https://bit.ly/30cTM3U

___

MAINE

Libraries can reach people in deep need

Portland Press Herald

Aug. 15

People don’t go to the library only when they need to borrow a book. Sometimes they go because they need a job or an apartment. Sometimes they just need to get warm.

Public libraries around the country have become unofficial service hubs for people whose needs go far beyond getting on the waiting list for the latest best-seller. People who are homeless and people who have mental illness or substance use disorders often end up in public libraries because they have no here else to go. And libraries, including the Portland Public Library, are stepping up to the challenge by putting a social worker on staff.

Some people will perceive a library needing to hire a mental health professional as a sign of social decline, but it makes more sense to see it as a positive development, even if it is not how libraries were originally set up. Libraries, like schools, jails and emergency rooms, are among the public institutions that can do something about a community mental health system that is not functioning. Doing that doesn’t get in the way of a library performing its core mission - in fact, it enables the library to do a better job.

A library is a great place to reach out to people who need help. There is no stigma to visiting a local library, as there might be with a clinic or a homeless shelter. The doors are open to everyone, and the facilities are used by every stratum of society. Library staff talk to patrons and get to know them. They can introduce patrons to a social service system that isn’t always easy to access.

And taking on this challenge instead of ignoring it keeps the library a comfortable place for its traditional clientele. In a recent social media post, the Portland library staff said they were proud of the facility’s role as a free public space that is open to the whole community: “Homelessness and mental illness are complex issues; however, most urban libraries, including Portland Public Library, rise to meet the realities of our diverse communities. We are grateful for our trained staff and onsite social worker for creating a safe and welcoming space for all of our patrons.”

The information revolution has changed the role of libraries in ways that could not have been imagined a generation ago. But it hasn’t made them less important as centers of civic life. It’s encouraging to see libraries step up to meet the needs of the communities they serve.

Online: https://bit.ly/2HoqvMj

___

MASSACHUSETTS

The Springfield Republican

Anti-immigrant rule is also un-American

Aug. 14

Donald Trump wants to put a price tag on the American dream.

New rules from the administration would make it more difficult for poor people to get green cards or to become citizens, but would at the same time ease the way for those of means. In short, America would be a shining city on a hill for those who could afford to pay the tab. Everyone else would be out of luck.

Once again, Stephen Miller, the White House’s anti-immigrant zealot who guides the president’s thinking on immigration policy matters, is effectively looking to rewrite the famed poem that has adorned the Statue of Liberty since 1903. It reads:

“Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

Miller’s version would be so much more prosaic and to the point:

“Show us the money!”

The story of America is a tale of immigrants, of those in search of a better tomorrow for themselves and their families. They came here, many with their pockets empty, but with their hearts and heads full of dreams.

On Monday, the Trump administration sought to rewrite that loveliest of tales with the issuance of new rules and definitions intended to clarify the Immigration and Nationality Act. Remember when conservatives used to whine ceaselessly about government bureaucrats overstepping their rightful authority to do the work of the Congress? Seems almost a quaint notion from an earlier time, doesn’t it?

The supposed rationale for the new round of rules-making: to prevent people who are likely to become a “public charge” from coming to our shores. The real reason, though, is clear. The White House, while often fixated on ending illegal immigration, wants also to reduce greatly the number of legal immigrants allowed into America.

It was, after all, just a few months back when Trump foolishly said that our nation was “full.”

It isn’t, and it never will be. It has always been, and must remain, a land of hope and dreams.

But not if the Trump administration has its way. Dreaming big would be only for those who could pay to play.

On Monday, the acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Ken Cuccinelli, defending the new rules, suggested that the poem on the bronze plaque at the iconic Statue of Liberty should actually read:

“Give me your tired and your poor who can stand on their own two feet and who will not become a public charge.”

Sadly, he wasn’t joking.

The new rules, set to take effect Oct. 15, will almost certainly be put on hold while they are challenged in the courts. One would hope that the so-called conservatives on the Supreme Court, and on lower federal courts, could be counted on to see that the administration, with its new policy directive, has overstepped its bounds and usurped the authority of the Congress.

The new plan is wrong morally, it’s wrong economically, and it should be declared unconstitutional as well.

Online: https://bit.ly/2Zafrbw

___

NEW HAMSPHIRE

Override Gov. Sununu’s veto of independent redistricting commission

Foster’s Daily Democrat

Aug. 12

We’re surprised and disappointed in Gov. Chris Sununu’s veto of House Bill 706, bipartisan legislation that would have created a politically balanced, independent electoral redistricting commission.

The bill aimed to stop the practice of gerrymandering, in which the party in power after the decennial census draws political boundaries to its own electoral advantage, essentially allowing politicians to pick their voters rather than voters choosing their political representatives.

The next census is in 2020 and New Hampshire’s political lines will be redrawn in 2021.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Marjorie Smith, D-Durham and supported by state Sen. Jim Gray, R-Rochester, and Sen. Virginia Birdsell, R-Hampstead, would have created a 15-member commission: five Republicans, five Democrats and five unenrolled members chosen by the Democratic and Republican members. Any action would have required an affirmative vote of nine of 15 members.

Rep. Smith said she was “devastated” by the governor’s veto.

“There is no better example of improving our democracy than was demonstrated in this bill,” Smith said. “Both the House and Senate Election Law Committees passed this bill with unanimous bipartisan support and the full Senate passed it on a voice vote. Only the House Minority Leader and Governor Sununu worked to keep their party’s best interest above the best interest of Granite Staters. Today the Governor chose to ignore the bipartisan action of the legislature to deny voters the right to choose who they would like to vote for.”

Gov. Sununu justified his veto by noting the state constitution mandates that the Legislature draw the district lines.

“The drafters of our Constitution were wise to vest such authority in the people’s elected representatives who are accountable to the voters every two years,” Sununu wrote in his veto statement. “The members of the commission proposed by House Bill 706 would be unelected and unaccountable to the voters. Legislators should not abrogate their responsibility to the voters and delegate and authority to an unelected and unaccountable commission selected by political party bosses.”

This argument is undermined by the fact that the Legislature would need to approve the commission’s final maps, thereby retaining the ultimate responsibility for redistricting.

Both parties have been guilty of drawing district lines to their advantage when they are in power during redistricting.

In California, where Democrats control the Legislature, Ronald Reagan called gerrymandering, “a national scandal”, and former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said it had “completely broken our political system.” Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich noted: “We’ve been drawing lines for political reasons all the way back to 1812. But I think it’s wrong. I think it leads to bad government.”

With gerrymandering, the only thing that’s certain is that voters lose because their districts are not based on shared geographic boundaries, school districts or other common uniting elements but rather are broken into bits and pieces to pluck out likely voters from one party or the other solely for political advantage.

Rep. Ned Gordon, R-Bristol, according to the Associated Press, testified that he represents five towns that are part of four different school districts. One of the towns is big enough to warrant its own district, but is lumped in with others, he said. Another is connected to the rest only by a dirt road. And two of the towns are so far apart, “there is no community of interest between the two towns at all.”

In an NHPR article, Gordon said: “I’m a Republican. I’m probably the beneficiary of that redistricting. But the fact is, it’s just not right for the constituents.”

We had hoped this good government spirit would prevail and that Gov. Sununu would sign the bill. Unfortunately he did not and our state missed a great opportunity to be a leader in fair and representative democracy.

The Legislature can still override the governor’s veto and we urge them to do so when it takes its override votes in September.

Online: https://bit.ly/30b8Fn9

____

RHODE ISLAND

Explaining the state takeover

The Providence Journal

Aug. 13

There continue to be encouraging signs that Rhode Island’s new education commissioner, Angélica Infante-Green, is serious about helping the young people of Providence, rather than stranding them in dismal public schools.

Last Thursday, she released a 71-page report explaining her proposed order to take over the city’s public schools. Mayor Jorge Elorza and City Council President Sabina Matos both voiced support for the order.

If all goes as planned, Ms. Infante-Green will get final approval and, in late October or early November, appoint a state turnaround superintendent who will work with the community to develop a reform plan. It would be in effect for at least three years.

The commissioner made clear her authority will be extensive and that she is willing to break the teachers’ contract if necessary. Teachers unions are an exceedingly powerful political interest in the state (and the nation).

Ms. Infante-Green said she is willing to work with the unions. But her strongly worded report echoed something we have stressed for years: The city and state must stop ignoring the interests of Providence students, even though they have little political clout.

She pointed out that years of efforts by the Rhode Island Department of Education and others have not worked.

“In sum, RIDE’s objective data shows that (the Providence Public School District) is failing to fulfill its duty to students,” Ms. Infante-Green wrote. “The district is failing them at staggering rates, despite significant financial resources and interventions and support from the state.”

Schools identified years ago as poorly performing remain poorly performing.

“Most alarmingly, a number of indicators demonstrate that the district’s performance is continuing to decline despite increased interventions and funding,” she wrote.

Since 2011, the state has pumped $84 million into the system, while the federal government has spent $33 million for one program and $18 million for another.

Yet fewer than 20 percent of students are proficient in math or English. Rates of absenteeism by students and teachers remain horrific. Graduation rates are poor. Bullying is rampant. Teachers and students do not feel safe. Very little learning occurs. It is almost impossible to fire bad teachers.

In short, the city’s standard government schools have utterly failed to give young people, especially poor and minority students, the education many will need to succeed in life and share in the American Dream. Even after Johns Hopkins University laid out the disaster in a devastating report, city and state officials declined to resign, another sign that there has been no culture of accountability over public education in Rhode Island.

We have been down this road before. Reformers have challenged entrenched interests and been driven out of the state, accused of being too contentious. When push came to shove, cowardly business leaders turned tail and the State House watered down reform.

If we are to avoid that pathetic fate this time, parents in Providence must remain aroused, determined that their children will get a good education. They must show up at schools, talk to teachers, attend meetings and make clear to weak and timid politicians that half-hearted measures will carry a price this time.

They must reinforce Ms. Infante-Green, so that when she charges into battle, she does not turn around to find that no one is behind her.

Online: https://bit.ly/2Z8sUk7

___

VERMONT

Electric vehicles: Go, go, go

The Rutland Herald

Aug. 15

A report earlier this summer by the Public Utility Commission makes an aggressive push toward the ownership and use of electric vehicles around Vermont.

The case that is made in the 50-page report points to the challenges of getting around Vermont while also making every effort possible to reduce our carbon footprint by burning less fossil fuel.

The report, which was delivered to various Senate and House committees at the end of June, examines barriers associated with rethinking electric vehicle use in a state that has set ambitious energy goals.

Some critics would ask: Are EVs the way to go? The report’s authors conclude “yes.”

In the face of climate change and the ever-increasing levels of greenhouse-gas emissions, the report points out that transportation is one area where technology is already in place that could have a lasting effect.

“The increase in fossil-fuel emissions in the state is due in large part to emissions from cars and trucks,” the report states. “With its reliance on gasoline and diesel, transportation accounts for 47% of the state’s greenhouse-gas emissions - outdistancing all other sectors, including residential and commercial heating.”

The state’s Comprehensive Energy Plan aims to increase the share of renewable energy in Vermont’s transportation sector to 10% in 2025 and 80% by 2050. (The hope is to achieve a reduction of greenhouse gas-emissions from transportation by 30% by 2025.)

According to the report, as of January, there were 2,985 EVs registered in Vermont. (That includes vehicles powered exclusively by rechargeable batteries and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.)

“Estimates for how many EVs must be registered in Vermont to meet the goals . range from 50,000 to 60,000 by 2025. The pace of EV adoption needed to reach 60,000 … is an approximately 54% compound annual growth rate,” the report notes.

The barriers are real ones for Vermonters: the price of new electric vehicles; the perceived limited distance that an EV can travel on a single charge; and limited availability of public charging locations, among the top reasons.

“This report concludes that we can and should take a variety of approaches to remove barriers to accelerate adoption of EVs,” the report states.

The PUC study concludes that can be done a number of ways: more EV purchase incentives by manufacturers, dealers, electric utilities and state government; easier pathways for the installation of public charging stations, both for parking and for fast charging for travelers; increased education and outreach efforts; and rate offerings by utilities that encourage certain charging behavior by EV owners and increase electricity sales at times that will result in lower cost for all electric ratepayers.

But critics say the plan creates incentives that would get passed on to all taxpayers if the state gets involved.

“The new law offers more EV purchase and lease incentives to ‘help all Vermonters to benefit from electric driving including (of course!) Vermont’s most vulnerable,’” wrote John McClaughry, of the Ethan Allen Institute. “If you’re sufficiently economically challenged, you can fight climate change by driving a $40,000 EV that will be the envy of your neighbors, at least until they find out how much subsidy it took to close the deal.”

He contends the charge to the PUC was clear: Find a way “to achieve the goals . without shifting costs to electric ratepayers who do not own or operate EVs.”

“In effect, the report wants to spend carbon tax revenues to subsidize thousands of EVs, even though the Legislature doesn’t dare pass a carbon tax bill that Gov. Phil Scott will assuredly veto,” McClaughry argues.

But the governor has said he wants to do something, and even committed some money toward advancing a portion of the state’s fleet of vehicles to EV.

In this space we recently criticized the Republican governor for not doing more to get behind recommendations from the Climate Action Network, a group of 21 experts tasked by executive order with examining the effects of climate change on the state. Boosting the EV fleet was also a part of their push. The administration could put more of a shoulder into these ideas.

We contend there have to be ways to put used EVs on the market for all Vermonters, not just those who can afford the higher-end vehicles. In fact, advocates for low-income Vermonters see the transportation/accessibility problem every day as they provide services. The fleet does not need to be elitist. And Vermont is a small enough state that - perhaps - with some out-of-the-box thinking and financing, we could make electric vehicles affordable. It could put us on that path toward sustainability and affordability.

Online: https://bit.ly/31G4eB6

Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2020 The Washington Times, LLC.