The Clarendon Select Board has questioned the role of the Public Service Board, arguing that it should be an elected, not appointed board, to review utilities in the state.

The statewide board's mission is "to ensure the provision of high-quality public utility services in Vermont at minimum reasonable costs, measured over time periods consistent with the long-term public good of the state."

It's hard to see how this is congruent with an elected PSB. Temporary public popularity is hardly the best way to serve the long-term interests of the state, another part of the board's charge, but an excellent way for a small but determined minority acting as a voting bloc to control utility policy.

It's not hard to see an elected board refusing all energy development in the state; at other times in Vermont's history, it's not hard to see a board that would pass every proposal after a cursory review. Neither is in the state's advantage.

Right now, the state is in limbo regarding renewable energy development. As Vermont has seen relatively little development of renewables, the guidelines for what is and isn't acceptable are less codified than in states already hosting thousands of megawatts of wind or solar installations.

As these developments have sprung up elsewhere, many have done exactly what they promised: Provide clean, safe energy not beholden to international pressures. Some, however, have raised unforeseen health or environmental issues.

For example, in Maine, early, small-scale research suggests that the Mars Hill wind project may have been built too close to homes. Elsewhere, primarily in the Southwest, solar projects are sucking dry groundwater reserves.

Those concerns present an opportunity for Vermont. The growing nationwide renewable industry needs a set of standards so developers know that if they follow these rules, their projects will meet with approval and so residents can be assured their health and safety have been guaranteed. Vermont's not a long way away from having a set of rules like that, as project after project (often with court action following) have established common-law precedents, but we're not there yet. In part that's because Gov. James Douglas has preferred to see small, haphazard, growth of "Vermont-scale" renewables. That growth is both vulnerable to political interference and ineffective at meeting the need for energy to replace Vermont Yankee, either in a couple of years or a couple of decades.

In addition to creating better, cheaper renewable energy in the state, there might be an additional benefit to setting down a careful, practical set of rules. Vermont remains a standard-bearer for environmental awareness among the states, and a good set of rules here could become the national standard for renewables the same way as California's standards have become the national benchmark for organic foods.

Organic certification is a substantial little cottage industry for that state, which charges fees between $400 and $1,000 per "small" producer, from all over North America. Large producers undoubtedly pay much more than that for the California organic seal of approval, which in turn satisfies consumers that the product they are buying has been vetted for quality and safety.

Like organics - or Vermont's financial success story, the captive insurance market - renewable energy is an area where thorough regulation of an industry is valuable, and our state has exactly the regulatory climate and environmental cachet to do the job.

All we lack is the will to pass a fair, safe and scientifically sound set of regulations, broadly applicable to all and free of political machinations.