title02
title04

Editorial

An unseemly campaign

As its name implies, the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) is founded on the principle that, beyond the competing interests that run our society and control our lives, there is a public interest that is all too often neglected.

We agree with the general proposition.  Using weapons no more powerful than a knack for publicity and an ability to bring vocal citizens into the halls of government and, more rarely, onto the streets, VPIRG has brought the public to the table on a long series of important issues.

And then thereÕs wind power.

VPIRG is deeply involved in the energy debate, a leading advocate of wind power.

Late last month VPIRG announced that, in a Òreport cardÓ on the efforts of northeastern states and provinces to combat global warming, VermontÕs grade has slipped from a C to a C-minus.

The reason, VPIRG Field Director Drew Hudson said in a press release, was clear:

Governor Jim Douglas has failed to keep his promises on energy, and Òas a result Vermont lags behind our neighbors in permitting commercial wind power and developing a comprehensive climate change action plan.Ó

The report card itself is the product of 18 environmental organizations in the Northeast.  The page on Vermont does, indeed, chide Mr. Douglas:

ÒThe Governor should reconsider his opposition to wind powerÉ,Ó it says.

Who says so?

According to the report, VermontÕs ÒgraderÓ was the Vermont Public Interest Research and Education Fund.  The phone number it lists is VPIRGÕs number in Montpelier.

Two years ago, VPIRG said that 15 percent of VermontÕs electricity should be generated in-state by windmills.

Earlier last month in its ÒVision for VermontÕs Energy FutureÓ VPIRG increased that to 20 percent. (Currently, the report says, 1 percent of our power comes from Òwind/other sustainableÓ sources.)

In a chapter called ÒProfile of a Vermont WindfarmÓ it gives a glowing account of UPC VermontÕs plans to erect 26 wind turbines in Sheffield and Sutton.

It notes that Òvoters in Sheffield, where 20 of the 26 turbines will be located, voted by a strong majority in favor of the project (120-93).Ó

It fails to note that Sutton residents voted six to one against the proposal at their Town Meeting in March. 

So whatÕs wrong with this picture?  If VPIRG believes that wind power is clearly in the public interest, why shouldnÕt it become its vigorous advocate, and take the Governor to task for opposing it?

The problem lies on VPIRGÕs board of directors.  Two members, Matt Rubin and David Rapaport, are the principals in East Haven Windfarm, the company that wants to put four demonstration wind towers on East Mountain and, ultimately, erect 50 windmills on the ridge lines of Essex County.

Mr. Rubin, president of East Haven Windfarm, is former chairman of the VPIRG board.  Mr. Rapaport, WindfarmÕs vice president, is VPIRGÕs former executive director. 

Both stand to make money if the state approves their projects, and lose money Ñ possibly a good deal of money Ñ if it doesnÕt.

So itÕs not about the public interest, after all.  VPIRG faces a good old-fashioned conflict of interest, just the sort of thing it was organized to protect us from.

Whether the conflict has seriously interfered with VPIRGÕs policy decisions or is merely apparent, the damage has been done.

In positioning itself as the chief cheerleader for wind power in Vermont, VPIRG has tarnished its own reputation.  It may even, in the long run, harm the cause of wind power. 

ItÕs a tough debate, one of the most perplexing weÕve covered.  A lot of people, if you will pardon the pun, are teetering on that ridge line between protecting the Vermont we love and enlisting in the very important battle against global warming. 

Speaking only for ourselves, VPIRGÕs self-righteous preaching on the subject cheeses us off, when we consider the probity of the source.  It tends to tip us a little toward the other side. 

VPIRG needs to do what it can to fix the problem, but itÕs pretty late in the game.  Rather than purge its board, maybe it should just withdraw from the wind power debate, and leave the field to those whose arguments wonÕt carry even a whiff of conflicted interests.  Ñ C.B.

[Front Page] [Top Stories] [Editorial]