Political Chowder's NUMBER OF THE WEEK - Sponsored by www.no-deal.org


February 10 , 2008
NUMBER OF THE WEEK
1 million
From: Slate, February 5, 2008



The Case for CFLs

Compact flourescent bulbs are save, and they look great, too

By Brendan I. Koerner

I'm constantly being told that the simplest way to improve my green cred is to start using compact fluorescent lights. Yet some naysayers—like one of your Slate colleagues—argue that the environmental benefits of CFLs are negated by their mercury content. Who's right?

The case against CFLs is built largely on half-truths and innuendo. Yes, the energy-saving bulbs contain mercury, a neurotoxin responsible for a tremendous amount of human suffering over the years. And safely recycling CFLs remains far more difficult than it should be. But these facts don't justify sticking with inefficient incandescent technology that has barely changed since the invention of the tungsten filament nearly a century ago.

CFLs are lauded by environmentalists because they require far less electrical power than their incandescent counterparts. A 26-watt CFL bulb produces the same lumens as a 100-watt incandescent bulb. Assuming that you keep one of those bulbs aglow for six hours a day, switching to a CFL will save you 126 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year, which translates to 170 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions on average. Now, how many bulbs do you have in your house? Twenty? Thirty? Replace them all and you could conceivably (assuming six-hour-a-day use throughout the building) reduce your annual CO2 output by upward of 2.3 metric tons—about 10 percent of the average American household's annual carbon footprint.

Just look at what's forecast for Australia, which last year became the first nation to mandate a gradual phase-out of incandescent bulbs. According to Australia's Environment Minister, the measure will eventually slash the country's greenhouse gas emissions by 4 million metric tons per year—the equivalent of taking 1 million vehicles off the road.

READ MORE


www.no-deal.org
FairPoint: We'll Stand by New Deal
Staff says settlement is in public interest
http://money.cnn.com/

By Kate Davidson

If FairPoint Communications is allowed to take over Verizon's landline telephone service in New Hampshire, it has committed to expanding broadband internet access, improving telephone service quality, fixing the state's deteriorating telephone network and paying financial penalties if it fails to meet those benchmarks, representatives of the company told the state Public Utilities Commission yesterday.

The terms were spelled out in a settlement agreement reached Jan. 23 among Verizon, FairPoint and PUC staff. Kate Bailey, director of the commission's telecommunications division, said yesterday that both companies had made significant concessions to come to an agreement with the staff, which had opposed the sale for months.

"I believe that a settlement agreement makes this transaction in the public interest," Bailey said.
Bailey and executives from FairPoint and Verizon outlined the changes yesterday at a hearing at the PUC offices in Concord.

Verizon wants to sell its telephone service in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont to FairPoint, a small, North Carolina-based company. The PUC in Maine approved the sale Friday. Utility regulators in New Hampshire and Vermont must issue final approval before the deal goes through.

Representatives from the state Office of Consumer Advocate, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Communication Workers of America have said the revised deal still does not do enough to protect Verizon customers and employees.

The companies have presented a similar settlement agreement in all three states that would lower the original $2.7 billion sale price by $235.5 million. Verizon has committed an additional $50 million for unforeseen maintenance expenses in New Hampshire, FairPoint Vice President Walter Leach said yesterday.

Leach said FairPoint planned to bring on two new members to the company's board of directors who have significant ties to New England, a stipulation that was important to the commission staff. Four of the seven current members are based in New England, Leach said.

FairPoint has agreed to maintain DSL internet speeds and prices - except standalone DSL service - for two years, Leach said, including Verizon's FiOS program, which uses fiber-optic cables to connect to the web at much faster speeds.

It also pledged not to raise telephone rates for five years.

The company has promised to expand internet access to 75 percent of telephone customers within 18 months, 85 percent of customers within two years and 95 percent of customers within five years. If the company fails to meet those benchmarks, it will be fined $500,000 for every percentage point it has not met.

FairPoint has also agreed to reduce its dividend payments to shareholders by 35 percent and spend $45 million, or 90 percent of its free cash flow, on paying back the money it has borrowed to purchase the Northern New England landlines. The company has pledged to spend $52 million a year for the first three years on capital expenditures, and it would be penalized if it does not spend all of the money.

Verizon's quality of service has faced scrutiny from the staff at the Public Utilities Commission and the Office of Consumer Advocate for years, but the commission did not have a system for penalizing the company if it failed to meet service-quality benchmarks. Under the settlement agreement, a system would be created to monitor and fine FairPoint for service-quality problems.

The money would be distributed to all FairPoint customers, regardless of the quality of service they receive.

The company would also provide regular reports on service quality, network improvements, and the size and competency of its workforce. The Office of Consumer Advocate questioned the group yesterday about how those reports would be filed and whether or not they would be available to the public.

Some employee information may be too sensitive to release, said FairPoint President Peter Nixon.
Bailey said the staff would consider posting the public reports on the commission website, which Consumer Advocate Meredith Hatfield has said promotes transparency.

The hearing will continue today with cross-examination and testimony from an industry expert for the two major labor unions opposed to the sale.



There are many, many more issues that need to be examined. This is just a snippet of what's wrong with this deal. For more in depth details, please go on-line to www.no-deal.org. This is a bad deal for consumers, tax payers, rate payers, our communities and for the economic growth of New Hampshire.