West Hartford Seeks Savings With New 'Energy Plan' -- Courant.com

The Courant's Josh Kovner reports on West Hartford's new Energy Plan, the product of a small group of dedicated and knowledgeable volunteers:

WEST HARTFORD —

This isn't about dimming the lights.

Well, it is — but the energy plan passed last week by the town council seeks to go a lot further — millions of dollars in savings further. The broad conservation scheme, backed by a task force of volunteers, will chase large reductions in energy bills for every town building and structure, outdoor fixture and vehicle. Right now, the town's energy bill is more than $16 million a year.

Here's an example of how the 40-page plan, available on the town's website, lays out a problem and incremental solutions:

The gasoline tab for the town's 300 vehicles was $670,000 last year. The plan is to reduce fuel usage by about 5 percent this year and next ($68,000 in savings) and by 10 percent in 2011. The goal, said council member Tim Brennan, is for new vehicles to have better gas mileage than those they replace. Read more...

Check out the town's new Energy Plan here.

"Never underestimate the power of a small group of people to change the world. In fact it’s the only way it ever has."
– Margaret Mead

Attractive Nuisance: Reader Poll on Luring Film Studio to CT with Tax Credits

Today’s Hartford Business Journal reader poll asks, “Should the state use tax credits to lure a $90 million film studio to South Windsor?” 83% of respondents answered yes.

This of course illustrates the trouble with polls and relying on them.

You have to wonder how those 83% decided it would be a good idea for the state to use tax credits to lure a film studio to South Windsor. Maybe they know something the rest of us don’t, but here are a few questions that need to be answered in order to offer an intelligent response:

• What kind of tax credits are we talking about?
• How much revenue would the state forego with those credits?
• What does a “$90 million film studio mean?” Is that their annual net income? Their net worth?
• Where are they moving from - Norwalk? (You laugh; yet we awarded tax credits for an intrastate corporate move before…)
• How exactly would the film studio benefit Connecticut? Are they going to hire new employees? How many? Would they be jobs that pay well? Does the studio offer insurance, or do they use a Wal-Mart type of arrangement? Will their staff live here and pay income tax? Will the studio actually film here, so we’d benefit from the all the subsidiary economic activity associated with filming and film crews and the like? Or are we just making ourselves a tax shelter state for the film industry?
• Would the state make the credits conditional on anything, like hiring x number of new employees or filming x number of movies in Connecticut over a given time span?

Without doing the homework and putting out answers to questions like these out there, polls are nothing more than an attractive nuisance. I’d rather read a well-researched, well-written story than an empty-headed poll any day, wouldn’t you?

Rell’s Budget Address: B+ for Content

Rell’s opening salvo in Connecticut’s budget balancing misery was surprisingly good. I almost gave her “A” for content, but then realized that was only because my expectations were not so high.

On delivery, I say “eh.” All the talk about “we are Connecticut” took me back to my cheerleading days. And I wasn’t so interested in hearing repeatedly how hard she worked on the budget. Yes, being Governor is a hard job.

Here’s what I liked:

• No cuts to Educational Cost Sharing grants. Good idea.
• Incentives for regional cooperation. Hallelujah. 169 little fiefdoms all doing the same thing is an absolute embarrassment.
• Agency consolidations (I think). In principle, I agree that we have too many little economic development type organizations scattered all over. They really ought to be under one umbrella, and in one location (what about a real campus of government agencies in Hartford, like Mass does it in Boston). However, consolidation is one thing David Osborne (Reinventing Government, performance based budgeting expert) specifically advised against in troubled economic times. Count on turf battles and more bureaucracy, not less.
• Accountability Office within OPM (I think). I’m all for accountability. Just put someone in charge who’s hardnosed, means business and takes no prisoners, and give the office some teeth. I had hoped, naively perhaps, that the governor and her chief of staff were holding their appointees accountable all along.
• Probate court reorganization. Yes. Long overdue.
• CT Conservation Corps – another good idea. Heaven knows there’s much work to be done. Let’s hear the details.
• Green jobs as economic engine. You bet. It’s coming. Let’s be at the front of the line to capitalize on it.

Here’s what I take issue with:

• Suspending binding arbitration agreements for two years. Not a good idea to thumb your nose at arbitrated settlements. Trust is the coin of the realm. If that’s how it’s going to be, why would anyone agree to arbitrate? This would just exacerbate litigiousness. Which is bad. Very bad.
• Raiding designated funds to cover operating expenses. Again, trust is the coin of the realm. Another reason why no one trusts state government. At least the RGGI funds dedicated to conservation seem to have been spared.
• Cutting half the funding for energy conservation. Bad. Very bad. And not smart either. Because energy conservation and the savings therefrom are an economic stimulus in themselves. (Please check out “How California's Green Push Will Boost Economy” and Energy Efficiency, Innovation & Job Creation in California.) This is not rocket science. If we save money on energy, we have more to spend on other stuff. Plus – if we’re going to train a green workforce, wouldn’t it be a good idea to support the industries that will employ them? Otherwise, we’ll just train a ready-to-export green workforce. We already do enough of that sort of thing. We ought to be looking at Germany and Japan for lessons in how government policy can drive a green economy.

All this is just the opening salvo. But as the Governor spoke, I started getting pretty excited about all the positive change that we could be on the brink of. So maybe she deserves better than a C on delivery after all. Carpe diem!

Wyman's Fiscal Policy Workgroup - Take A Good Idea One Step Further

Comptroller Nancy Wyman’s idea to form a fiscal policy workgroup of noted economists to address our current budget and revenue challenges is a good one. We should take it one step further and make the initiative as transparent to the public as possible.

Wouldn’t it be a breath of fresh air if Wyman created a section on the Comptroller’s website dedicated to this workgroup’s activities? The information that should be available for public viewing should include:

• who’s on the workgroup, and their credentials
• what the group is expected to accomplish, and by when
• meeting agendas
• meeting minutes
• reports
• the cost-benefit analysis for any proposals
• how proposals align with David Osborn’s Reinventing Government and performance based budgeting recommendations summarized at the LOB on 2/2 and at CERC’s 2008 annual conference.

One would expect that all the above documentation is going to be prepared in electronic documents anyway, so posting it to the website would not present a burden. The Comptroller might also set up an email subscription feature or blog so readers could subscribe for announcements of activities and the release of information.

The cost of the taking these measures is low, but the benefits, in terms of public trust, would be enormous. Trust, they say, is the coin of the realm.

Analyze Benefits, Not Just Costs, in Prioritizing Shovel Ready Projects

We need an intellectually disciplined, transparent system for prioritizing our spending.  And that means conducting a rigorous cost-benefit analysis that prioritizes projects according to a set of consistent, consolidated criteria. 

Everybody knows that federal stimulus discussions have included talk about putting money into “shovel ready” infrastructure projects that could put people to work quickly.  That’s fine – as long as those shovel ready projects don’t just dig us deeper into the hole we’re already in, perpetuating our reliance on petroleum and continuing to create greenhouse gases.  As in spending the money on roads at the expense of smarter, more efficient, and cleaner systems for moving people and goods from place to place.

So yesterday’s call at the capitol for investing in a well-planned system of walkways, bus service and passenger rail was right on the mark. (See Connecticut Legislators Told To Focus On Mass Transit.)  Transportation advocates are right:  we do need to prioritize among the projects that get funded.    

Of course it’s appropriate to call for the Governor, DOT Commissioner Marie, and legislators to prioritize funding for transportation projects and be transparent about it.  That’s just fundamental good government.  But let’s not stop there.  We need to take the next step and tell those folks how we want to see the projects prioritized.

I’m no transportation expert, but I’ll take a stab at it to get the discussion going.  In a cost-benefit analysis, we might evaluate a project’s benefits by asking:

• Does it enhance safety?
  
• Would it reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT)?
  
• Does it promote walking? Cycling? Bus or train travel?
  
• Does it connect transportation alternatives?
  
• Does it promote transportation oriented development in a smart location?
  
• Will it put Connecticut residents to work?  How many? For how long? At what income level?
  
• Is there a feasible plan to cover its operational costs?
  

The more “yes-es” a project scores, and the degree to which it would accomplish those goals, the stronger the business case would be for going forward with a project.  Now that would be good, transparent government.