Obama Administration Delays Decision on Keystone XL Pipeline - NYTimes.com

TeamObama punts an important decision, seemingly for political reasons. Will the real leaders please stand up?

"“I support the State Department’s announcement today regarding the need to seek additional information about the Keystone XL pipeline proposal,” the president said in a statement. “Because this permit decision could affect the health and safety of the American people as well as the environment, and because a number of concerns have been raised through a public process, we should take the time to ensure that all questions are properly addressed and all the potential impacts are properly understood.”"

'via Blog this'

State officials say Irene transportation repairs will cost less than half what they anticipated

I have long maintained that Vermont's very high 'transaction costs' (the overheads including regulatory and environmental compliance, permitting, administrative and judicial delays for reviews, appeals, etc.) that are incurred to build anything of consequence in this state add unnecessary delays, expense and increase the costs of doing business here.

The exceptional work done recovering from Irene's damage shows that Vermont could be far more efficient in using tax and private dollars. A wise Legislature would revamp how Vermont does business and set the state on a path of economic growth by reducing the wasteful burden created by a ponderous and expensive process that adds little value to our investments.

"...The dramatic shift brings the overall estimate of Irene damage built into state estimates well below the roughly $900 million mark state officials were citing in mid-October. The new grand total is about $500 million and includes $250 million for new emergency and long-term highway repair costs, $50 million to construct a new Vermont State Hospital, $50 million for stabilizing the old state office complex and renovating or building new space, about $19 million in individual assistance and $140 million in repairs to town roads, bridges and public facilities..."

"...The state also saved millions of dollars by taking short cuts during the post-Irene emergency that normally would be prohibited under state and federal laws. The standard pre-construction procedures for road and bridge repair were abandoned in order to expedite the process, according to Sue Minter, deputy commissioner of the Agency of Transportation. The processes that are normally followed for transportation projects — federal and state permitting, environmental mitigation, design review, planning, right-of-way purchases – went by the wayside..." 

'via Blog this'

Vermont's Infrastructure Repair Costs

News from The Associated Press:

The AP story excerpt below suggests the state infrastructure repair costs will be $300-500 million, not including local repair costs, according to Vermont's Secretary of Transportation. Let's say the total is ~$600 million to include local damage. This is a large number to be sure and the recovery will not be rapid given the widespread damage and cannot begin to measure the disruption in the lives of Vermonters.

But let's put this in some perspective. The news lately is replete with the immensity of the U.S. national debt and continued deficits as far as the eye can see. The $14 trillion debt required interest payments in 2010 of $413,954,825,362.17 . If Vermont's infrastructure repair costs are ~$600 million, that represents a mere 0.14% of last year's interest on the nation's debt. BIG is certainly in the eye of the beholder!

"MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) -- Fixing the infrastructure carnage left by Tropical Storm Irene will cost between $300 million to $500 million, Vermont's transportation secretary told lawmakers Tuesday, giving the first public estimates of the cost of repairing dozens of bridges, roads and culverts wrecked in flooding."

'via Blog this'

New Rules for New Technology - NYTimes.com

   I have not yet read the FCC proposal to subsidize broadband deployment in hard-to-serve areas, but the policy shift to use revised rules of the Universal Service Fund to support broadband deployment makes sense in today's technology environment.

   This will not be an easy approval process because of the very high cost areas of the country often served by small companies. These companies are heavily reliant on the transfer of funds to remain viable in today's environment. Some accommodation will be required to keep them in business and/or to continue POTS service to these costly customers.

   But broadband is the service that must be promoted for people to access the Internet and all the benefits it brings.

"The proposal from the Federal Communications Commission to stop subsidizing rural phone lines and start subsidizing rural broadband connections is long overdue. Right now an estimated 14 million to 28 million Americans have no way of getting access to the Internet."

The "Cloud" and its Compting Infrastructure

The Architecture Issue - Data Center Overload - NYTimes.com

This story about the rapid increase in cloud computing and the need for massive server capacity and the electricity to run them is fascinating. A bit of a long read, but worth it. One scientist estimates that data/computing centers already consume 1-2% of the world's demand for electricity.

"Data centers worldwide now consume more energy annually than Sweden. And the amount of energy required is growing, says Jonathan Koomey, a scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. From 2000 to 2005, the aggregate electricity use by data centers doubled. The cloud, he calculates, consumes 1 to 2 percent of the world’s electricity."

The story contains a fascinating example of spin. Was the author spun by the people he interviewed or did he purposely spin the story? The spin involves a discussion near the end of the piece where he discusses Microsft's use of containerized servers, implying, but not saying that MS may have invented the concept. The fact is that this idea originated with Google a few years ago and has been their practice for a long time. In fact, they have patents on this technology. I would think the author would have used a Google rather than a Microsoft example to illustrate the trend.

Google crashes the smart-grid party | Green Tech - CNET News

Google crashes the smart-grid party | Green Tech - CNET News

Wait until the paranoid privacy wonks get their heads around this. The smart grid/meter will enable Google (do no evil) to remotely monitor every electrical meter. Will the next step be control of the flow of electrons through that meter into a home or business above and beyond the control of the customer?

Think about the implications. People who don't/can't pay their bills would get electricity only during certain hours. If a household used more than the 'acceptable' amount, they would pay exorbitant prices for those extra KWH used at peak times. Of course, this is possible now as an option in some places, but what if it becomes mandatory to 'save the planet?"

This will be a fun debate!

Broadband snakes through power lines | ZDNet Photo Gallery

Broadband snakes through power lines | ZDNet Photo Gallery

A few simplistic photos showing how Broadband over Power Lines (BPL) works. There's some movement to introduce this service by a company called Current in the Dallas-Fort worth Area, which just entered a distribution agreement with DirectTV. I think the power company in Cincinnati has a trial underway. However, it seems early in the life of this technology and even if it's technically successful, the ability to compete against the dominant providers, telcos and cablecos, remains questionable. Rural areas may offer the best market for this technology, those areas where DSL, fiber and coax don't reach.

Vermont Transportation Investments

(posted by me in the Burlington Free Press' online forum on August 3; published in their print edition on August 7, 2007)

The Vermont Department of Transportation has been saying consistently for years that we need to move faster in fixing bridges in the state. Replacing a bridge is not a quick task with planning, design, permitting and available contractor capacity. The minimum goal for Vermont would be for our Legislature to commit to spending ALL transportation tax revenue (likely to decrease as vehicles become more fuel efficient and people drive less) on transportation issues. Even that would not suffice.

In addition, we probably should consider a significant increase in spending, probably by long term bonding. We could use the state's excellent credit rating to increase asset replacements, primarily bridges. This would have the advantage of forcing the commitment of future $ to transportation infrastructure rather than divert them to the political 'cause of the hour.'

If we continue to underfund the most basic underpinnings of our economy and way of life, that neglect will eventually come back to bite us and we should not expect the Feds to do more than they are now.

I believe we have a huge financial storm ahead as the infrastructure demands and the health care funding crisis may converge at the same time.

True leadership in state government would put this potential financial crisis scenario front and center for the next legislative session. It transcends next year's budget in importance.

Legislators...are you listening?

Vermont Transportation Energy Study

The UVM Transportation Center recently published this report about energy usage in the transportation sector. Some valuable information in the report. It should serve to inform policy makers about one aspect of Vermont's transportation sector.

I would love to see a study of the future costs of options to bring Vermont's transportation infrastructure into better condition.

Vermont's Transportation Infrastructure

The disaster in Minnesota should be a wakeup call for Vermont. While a bridge disaster of that scale is unlikely here, Vermont's infrastructure, particularly bridges, is in poor shape. Leaders will do all they can to reassure the public that it's unlikely here.

The Vermont Department of Transportation has been saying consistently for years that we need to move faster in fixing bridges in the state. Replacing a bridge is not a quick task with planning, design, permitting and available contractor capacity. The minimum goal for Vermont would be for our Legislature to commit to spending ALL transportation tax revenue (likely to decrease as vehicles become more fuel efficient and people drive less) on transportation issues. Even that would not suffice to catch up with demand.

In addition, we probably should consider a significant increase in spending, probably by long term bonding. We could use the state's excellent credit rating to increase asset replacements, primarily bridges. This would have the advantage of forcing the commitment of future $ to transportation infrastructure rather than divert them to the political 'cause of the hour.'

If we continue to underfund the most basic underpinnings of our economy and way of life, that neglect will eventually come back to bite us and we should not expect the Feds to do more than they are now.

I believe we have a huge financial storm ahead as the infrastructure demands and the health care funding crisis may converge at the same time.

True leadership in state government would put this potential financial crisis scenario front and center for the next legislative session. It transcends next year's budget in importance.

Legislators...are you listening?