In somewhat of a tongue-in-cheek maneuver, Rep. Oliver Olsen, R-Jamaica, proposed a resolution that would prevent the state from using a law enacted last year that allows it to recover legal costs from litigation with a utility.
The provision, which came to the Legislature late last session, was targeted at Entergy, the company that sued the state over a law that effectively prohibited the continued operation of Vermont Yankee.
Now that Gov. Peter Shumlin says the Legislature should not interfere with an open Public Service Board docket concerning the merger of electric utilities Green Mountain Power and Central Vermont Public Service Corp., Olsen says, the state shouldn’t try to meddle in a court proceeding either.
Olsen said the proposal to require a court to pay back the state for legal fees, “seemed outside our jurisdiction for some of us.”
“You’re obviously interfering with an active docket before the judiciary,” he said.
Now, Olsen said, he is concerned that the Shumlin administration is using basically the same argument to tell lawmakers they should not direct the Public Service Board to give ratepayers $21 million in a cash refund for their bailing out the utilities in the early 2000s.
“The resolution is a little tongue in cheek,” Olsen said. “It sort of highlights the contradictory statements and actions of the governor’s administration.”
He said he doesn’t really expect it to go anywhere, but he hopes to at least shed light on some irony.
“If we’re going to take position that the Legislature should not interfere with open dockets, we need to be consistent about it,” Olsen said. “We can’t pick and choose what we want the Legislature to interfere with.”
At his weekly press conference, Shumlin defended his position that it is unwise for the Legislature to intervene in the Public Service Board docket. He said the case with Entergy is different.
“The role of the Legislature with Entergy is different from all other regulated cases because of precedent that they couldn’t build the plant without an affirmative vote of the Legislature,” he said. “Also because of Act 160, signed by Governor Douglas, that required affirmative vote before the Public Service Board could act.”
In 2011, Entergy, Vermont Yankee’s owner, sued the state over the law that required legislative approval before the Public Service Board could issue it a new license.
Shumlin said Entergy is in a unique situation. He said lawmakers shouldn’t compare the merger proceeding to the Entergy case.
He said the Legislature should let the merger proceeding play out.
“If we believe in the Public Service Board process, which I do, we should let them do their work,” he said. “In terms of Entergy, because the Legislature was required by law to be involved with the question of how to continue to operate, Entergy is the exception to the rule because of precedent set when the plant was built. It’s different from rate cases, mergers and other business that comes before the board.”
Olsen was one of four representatives to testify in the House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development about the possibility of the Legislature directing the Public Service Board or Department of Public Service to require utilities to pay ratepayers $21 million in cash as a result of a “windfall” they got when they were near bankruptcy. An agreement between the Department of Public Service and Green Mountain Power would direct $21 million to an efficiency fund instead, with the utilities recovering the money through rates.
Lawmakers tried to get such an amendment to the floor, but efforts failed when they tried to attach it to this year’s energy bill. Another target, a Public Service Board housekeeping bill, has been stalled in Senate Appropriations. That bill was returned to the Commerce committee last week in order to have testimony on the merger issue.
