Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

redeggplant01 OP t1_j72sa6u wrote

Reply to comment by GraniteGeekNH in An Expensive Lesson that NH could learn from Veront by redeggplant01

Someone didnt read the article otherwise they know their comment is dead wrong

−7

sauerbratenspaetzle t1_j73fxer wrote

OP, you need to read the fine print because this isn't a news article... it's a biased COMMENTARY. The author is the president of a consulting firm that uses litigation to help corporations fight regulation from government and maximize profits.

Additionally, I don't see where the author fulfilled the requirements for submitting a commentary to VTdigger.org (town of residence and a brief biography, including affiliations with political parties, lobbying or special interest groups). I doubt he even still lives in the northeast if he works for a consulting firm based in New Mexico.

From the VTDigger.org website:

"About Commentaries

VTDigger.org publishes 12 to 18 commentaries a week from a broad range of community sources. All commentaries must include the author’s first and last name, town of residence and a brief biography, including affiliations with political parties, lobbying or special interest groups. Authors are limited to one commentary published per month from February through May; the rest of the year, the limit is two per month, space permitting. The minimum length is 400 words, and the maximum is 850 words. We require commenters to cite sources for quotations and on a case-by-case basis we ask writers to back up assertions. We do not have the resources to fact check commentaries and reserve the right to reject opinions for matters of taste and inaccuracy. We do not publish commentaries that are endorsements of political candidates. Commentaries are voices from the community and do not represent VTDigger in any way. Please send your commentary to Tom Kearney, commentary@vtdigger.org."

7

ProlapsedMasshole t1_j72v506 wrote

I just read it and that's how it came across to me?

What's your interpretation?

6

redeggplant01 OP t1_j72viy9 wrote

Then you missed

"The “LEAP” model used by the consultants (Energy Futures Group of Hinesburg), which was developed by the Stockholm Environment Institute and funded by the Swedish government, plus numerous environmental groups and renewable energy proponents, is available to the public. But the actual data assumptions used by the consultants and the results produced by the LEAP model are not.

The Ethan Allen Institute’s recent open records request to the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources turned up nothing. According to the agency, the data used for all of the modeling and the detailed results were not part of the “deliverables” from the consultants who wrote the action plan. Thus no independent review of the costs and supposed benefits is possible. "

−2

ProlapsedMasshole t1_j730226 wrote

No I didn't. How does what you quoted counter that initial conclusion?

6

redeggplant01 OP t1_j7354y0 wrote

Then you missed

"The “LEAP” model used by the consultants (Energy Futures Group of Hinesburg), which was developed by the Stockholm Environment Institute and funded by the Swedish government, plus numerous environmental groups and renewable energy proponents, is available to the public. But the actual data assumptions used by the consultants and the results produced by the LEAP model are not.

The Ethan Allen Institute’s recent open records request to the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources turned up nothing. According to the agency, the data used for all of the modeling and the detailed results were not part of the “deliverables” from the consultants who wrote the action plan. Thus no independent review of the costs and supposed benefits is possible. "

−3

ProlapsedMasshole t1_j73ecjd wrote

No I didn't. How does what you quoted and bolded counter that initial conclusion?

See, I can copy, paste and add formatting too.

5