About 27 percent of the more than 600 survey respondents gave their support to Republican Sen. Randy Brock.

The poll, conducted by Castleton Polling Institute, also showed President Barack Obama would win over Republican contender Mitt Romney by a similar margin (59.3 percent to 27.5 percent). Lt. Gov. Phil Scott has 56.5 percent approval rating, according to the poll. The Legislature got a 57.5 percent approval rating, and about 31.5 percent disapproved of lawmakers’ performance in the 2012 session.

Brock’s media consultant, Robert Wickers, issued a statement downplaying the significance of the poll and attributed Shumlin’s good showing to high name recognition.
“What the poll does not show is the concern voters have about his failed record on jobs, the economy, health care, and energy,” Wickers wrote. “These poll numbers are similar to the poll numbers at the start of Randy Brock’s 2004 campaign for State Auditor, which he went on to win by 10 points.  The campaign for governor has just begun.  As Vermonters learn more about Randy, and hear his positive message of economic growth and prosperity, this race will tighten.”

VTDigger

Miro Weinberger, mayor of Burlington. Shayne Lynn Photography. http://www.shaynelynn.com. © 2011 Shayne Lynn. Used with permission.

Only days before more than 100 residents showed up at Burlington High School to speak their minds about racial inequality and harassment in the schools.
 
Some people called for Superintendent of Schools Jeanne Collins to resign. Collins recently issued a public apology, but added that she does not intend to step down.  
 
“To those of you who believe action has taken too long,” she wrote, “and particularly to students in our district who have suffered from the racism which I know continues, I say that I am sorry.”
 
Progressive Vince Brennan, one of the first to call for Collins’ replacement, suggested on Monday that safety and other race-related problems are being swept under the rug.
 
Mayor Miro Weinberger is about to release a statement about Collins and the school.

Mayor says noise a “limited” factor for F-35s

On Tuesday, the mayor defended his most controversial decision to date: support for basing 18 to 24 F-35s at the airport. Last week, Weinberger opted not to send a statement to the environmental impact hearing. Instead, he issued his decision in the days that followed in a rolling response to media inquiries. 
 
Weinberger aide Mike Kanerick acknowledged that there was no press release, but insisted that it wasn’t a calculated move.
 
The period for public comment on the F-35’s impacts has been extended until June 20, according to the Air Force. This is mainly due to a request from Maine for a hearing. A number of Vermont public officials, including Gov. Peter Shumlin and Lt. Gov. Phil Scott, haven’t waited and are already on board, mainly touting economic benefits and the need to protect National Guard. Although there is no official link between where F-35s are based and the future of the Vermont Guard, many backers assume that cutbacks are more likely if Vermont is not chosen, or even seems less than enthusiastic.
 
Vermont’s congressional delegation has expressed pride in the past about being considered for the F-35s. More recently, they have issued careful statements about balancing “legitimate concerns” with the value, services and excellence of the Guard. Little has been said about the aircraft itself.
 
Weinberger, a leading member of the Airport Commission before his election as mayor, said he decided to wait until after the hearing just in case “anything new” emerged in the discussion. That said, he feels the benefits of the Guard to the city and region are obvious and enormous, while “the environmental impacts have been limited.”
 
“Having reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement and listened closely to the public reactions to it, I do not believe that this balance will substantially change,” his statement says. “I support the Air Guard in its efforts to base the F-35As here.”
 
In response to VTDigger, Weinberger acknowledged that “some people will be more impacted than others,” and said he respected the concerns and views offered during the hearing, and at other stages of the process. He bristled, however, at the suggestion that housing will be lost as a consequence of accepting the aircraft.
 
“Not a single person will lose housing because of this,” he insisted. The airport’s decision to purchase nearby residential properties is not linked to the F-35s, he added. “These properties are impacted not only by takes offs and landings, but also by a variety of impacts on the ground.”
 
“The most significant F-35 impact is potentially increased noise,” he added. “I’m not ignoring that, but it is a limited impact.”
 
On Monday, the City Council authorized Weinberger and airport officials to purchase up to 14 properties near the airport for “anticipated growth, environmental compatibility (noise), and in the interest of public benefit.” Reimbursement is anticipated through FAA grants.
 
The F-35 environmental impact statement (EIS) says that up to 1,300 properties will be affected adversely by the noise, to some extend and depending on how many fighter jets ultimately arrive. The nature and intensity of the impacts, plus the fact that lower-income areas will disproportionately feel the effects, are at the heart of the debate.

In Winooski on Monday night the City Council officially asked the Air Force to “clearly identify the potential impact on the economic health” of Winooski. They also want to know why Burlington’s airport is a preferred alternative to “areas that may have fewer adverse impacts.”

A controversial ordinance to fine protesters

Although the Burlington council also heard briefly from the Air Force, the focus in Contois Auditorium was on the healthcare buffer zone proposal, sparking debate over another question of balance – between free speech and access to health services.   

Ultimately, the Council voted 13-1 to send the proposal on to the Ordinance Committee for review before its expected passage. The topic nevertheless dominated an intense, extended but civil Public Forum period. If the measure passes protesters could be fined between $50 and $500 for violating a 35-foot “sphere of protection” extending in all directions around reproductive health facilities in the city.
 
Planned Parenthood supporters said protests have been a bigger problem since the regional headquarters for the women’s health clinics moved from Mansfield Avenue to a downtown location.
 
Anti-abortion activists insist that the protests are not obstructive. They say they want to pray, grieve and offer a different choice. 
 
Weinberger calls the Public Forum period, which often covers a range of topics, “democracy in action.” In this case, however, he didn’t need more input before taking a stand.
 
“I took a public position early in favor of the ordinance,” he noted, and he agrees with the basic findings as explained in the draft: “the exercise of a person’s right to protest or counsel against certain medical procedures is a First Amendment activity that must be balanced against another person’s right to obtain medical counseling and treatment in an unobstructed manner.”
 
During the forum several speakers criticized what they described as limitations on speech rights and preferential treatment. Comparisons were drawn with the Occupy encampment that was briefly permitted in City Hall Park last fall, and more recent picketing outside the door of the Citizens Bank.
 
Paul Decelles, a Republican councilor who has emerged as a major critic of liberal stances since the departure of his counterpart Kurt Wright, took up the comparison and ran with it. “What would we do if banks felt intimidated and wanted a buffer zone?”
 
He called the proposal a form of unnecessary “spot zoning.” Democrat Norm Blais objected to the comparison.
 
In an April 29, 2012 statement Occupy Burlington announced plans to develop a permanent picket line outside the Citizens Bank until it closes and leaves. Since then activists with signs and handouts have gathered each weekend to talk with bank patrons and get the word out.
 
“Ultimately, our goal is for there to never be a time when someone can bank at Citizens Bank without first crossing a picket line,” says the groups’ “Resolution for the Ejection of Citizens Bank from Burlington, Vermont.”
 
Bram Kranichfeld argued that existing legal tools – mainly trespass and disorderly conduct statutes – are not adequate to deal with the main problem. Anti-abortion protests he said could have a “chilling effect” on people facing difficult life choices.
 
Progressives Rachel Siegel and Max Tracy support the buffer zone. Vince Brennan, the third progressive, looked for a way to reconcile his belief that “protest is positive” with an equally strong sense that health care is a human right.
 
“I’m not an anarchist,” Brennan said, “but we need a place where that voice can be heard.”

Occupy movement wants new encampment

 
The Occupy Burlington movement is also looking to expand its protests. In addition to picketing outside the Citizens Bank the Occupy movement wants to establish a new encampment this year. An attempt in early May to set up tents at Pomeroy Park in the Old North End was interrupted by the police. The group continues to hold General Assemblies, and uses social networks to organize events and show solidarity. Members of Occupy, often with signs, have been present recently whenever people gather to address officials.
 
“Even though I have sympathy toward goals of the Occupy movement, the events of last fall brought it home that that we as a community need to be clear,” Weinberger explained. Although he expressed support for free speech and free assembly, “and those rights need to be respected, I intend to enforce regulations for all groups.” That means an encampment will not be allowed in City Hall Park or other public locations where overnight camping is prohibited.
 
However, Weinberger also mentioned that the rules and ordinances on camping are not uniform throughout the city. Asked whether there are circumstances or places under which a permanent presence might be legally possible, he suggested that interested parties consult the statutes.
 
So far, however, Weinberger said “no one has come to me about camping on public lands.”

VTDigger

Gov. Peter Shumlin holds up the new "I am Vermont Strong" license plate during his State of the State Address. VTD file photo/Josh Larkin

Sometimes a story comes down to a single word.

“Inhale” is one that comes to mind, a la Bill Clinton.

In this case, the word in question is “sold” vs. “distributed,” “produced” or “manufactured.”

Last week Peter Hirschfeld of the Vermont Press Bureau reported that Gov. Peter Shumlin erroneously claimed the state had sold 25,000 Vermont Strong license plates at a press conference last month. (Governor’s office press release.)

What’s in 25,000 plates? For the Shumlin administration a potential credibility gap with the public — and for his political enemies a stick to beat him with in the upcoming campaign season.

Not to mention the potential sullying of a good cause.

The WCAX account made it appear that Shumlin was overstating the case and grabbing headlines.

Previous gaffes helped to make the story stick. Shumlin once mistakenly claimed that 30 percent of Germany’s energy came from solar power (it’s actually 1 percent), and he said in his 2012 state budget address that the job growth rate in Vermont grew by 62 percent over the prior year. The figure Shumlin used actually referred to the percentage increase in job openings.

But was Shumlin engaging in hyperbolic politispeak in this instance? Sources say there could be a political undercurrent at work here — since the story was shopped around to at least three reporters.

Let’s recap.

The April 5 announcement was part of a dog and pony show, in which Rob Ide, the commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles, handed Shumlin the 25,000th plate. The governor duly purchased and donated the Vermont Strong plate to a Barre firefighter.

Trouble was, 25,000 plates hadn’t actually been sold. And since this is a story about parsing the parsing, let’s just say that money had not yet changed hands.

Thousands of plates had been distributed to area grocery stores, Vermont Life and Department of Motor Vehicle outlets around the state, and in some cases bills had been issued, but the fact was money wasn’t exactly pouring in to benefit the Vermont Disaster Relief Fund and the Vermont Foodbank.

The bottom line? Money had been collected for 7,832 plates as of May 15, according to Glen Button, deputy commissioner of the Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles, and the Vermont Disaster Relief Fund had received $140,976 and the food bank $15,664. The objective is to sell 50,000 plates in all for a total of $1.25 million — $1 million of which would go to Irene victims. So far, about 28,000 have been manufactured.

On May 7, a week before the Vermont Press Bureau story broke, Ide told VTDigger that as far as he was concerned the plates were as good as sold. The department had distributed 9,990 plates to large vendors like Shaw’s, Price Chopper and Hannafords. At that point, he said, the department had billed out $327,500 to vendors.

“If we give them an invoice,” Ide said. “In my book I’ve sold them.”

A week later, Ide, who helped to plan the celebratory presser with Shumlin’s press secretary Sue Allen, said “we miscommunicated.” Ide meant to say that 25,000 had been manufactured and put into the distribution stream — not sold.

Email, he said, is not his best form of communication. Ide apparently didn’t interpret the email from Allen with the subject line “Any chance we could sell the 25,000 license plate on Thursday?” the same way she did. But in a previous email he named a date and exact time for when the 25,000th plate would be sold: 11:18 a.m. on April 4.

“It is what it is,” Ide said. “It was clearly a miscommunication, and I’m very apologetic about that.”

Who is at fault here? No one, according to Allen. In an interview, she called it “an honest mistake.”

“The governor’s been very candid,” Allen said. “When things go right, he gets all credit. When things go wrong he gets blame. It was a mistake and we’re sorry.”

Ditto, Alex MacLean, Shumlin’s campaign manager and secretary of Civil and Military Affairs: “I’m not going to point fingers.”

Chris Graff, an executive with National Life Insurance Group and a member of the Vermont Disaster Relief Fund board, says the story was a tempest in a teapot. What really matters is ensuring that the state continues to sell as many plates as possible for Irene victims.

“We were disappointed to see we hadn’t sold 25,000 plates, but I know that the event itself was done in good faith that the governor and everyone in the office truly thought the 25,000th plate was being sold because they contacted us,” Graff said.

Graff said it was an embarrassment for the administration and “it’s on something you don’t want to really affect.”

“We need to do everything possible to raise money for Irene survivors and the administration feels that sharply,” Graff said. “They have been incredibly aologetic for this mistake.”

Allen couldn’t agree more. “We just want people to go out and buy the plates,” she said. “They don’t just mean financial assistance for Irene victims, they are a reminder to people who are still trying to recover.”

Meanwhile, the Department of Motor Vehicles is waiting for sales to catch up with inventory. Ide says the manufacture of new Vermont Strong plates has been put on hold until the state moves more of the roughly 20,000 plates it has on hand.

VTDigger

Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell

A WCAX/WDEV poll shows that incumbent Vermont Attorney General Bill Sorrell would beat his challenger TJ Donovan, Chittenden County state’s attorney, by 26 percentage points if the Democratic primary were held today.

Read the poll.

Sorrell would garner 49.3 percent of the vote, while Donovan would get 23.2 percent of ballots cast in the Democratic primary, according to the poll conducted by the Castleton Polling Institute.

The survey of 607 Vermonters paid for by WCAX/WDEV also shows if Sen. Vince Illuzzi was the Republican challenger in the General Election, a Democrat — either Sorrell or Donovan — would win by a wide margin.

~Anne Galloway

Sorrell backed by four senators

Sens. Claire Ayer, Sara Kittell, Robert Hartwell and Harold Giard have thrown their allegiance behind Sorrell. The four senators, who represent Addison, Franklin and Bennington counties, formally endorsed the incumbent attorney general on Monday.

Two of the senators emphasized Sorrell’s impact as a “national leader” in their endorsements.

In a statement, Ayer said Sorrell has made Vermont “a national leader on public health matters.”

“Bill’s fight against big tobacco alone has secured more than $300 million for Vermonters, with an additional $25 million guaranteed every year,” Ayer said. “You can’t argue with success like that.”

Hartwell cited Sorrell’s auto emissions standard fight as an example of the top law enforcement officer’s commitment to the environment.

“He made the state a leader in the fight for a safe and clean environment, not only helping Vermonters protect our own environment but setting a national precedent for other concerned citizens,” Hartwell said in a statement.

Sorrell, at a meeting of the Democratic state committee May 12, said his record speaks for itself, and noted his willingness to take on big corporations to defend the interests of Vermonters.

~Anne Galloway

Senate Judiciary chair endorses Donovan

Sen. Dick Sears, D-Bennington, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, endorsed attorney general candidate TJ Donovan Monday.

The senior senator said Donovan has his priorities straight in addressing problems facing Vermont, particularly in regard to prescription drug abuse, a cause Sears championed in the Senate this year.

“I think that he understands that it is a very serious health and criminal justice issue right now in Vermont,” Sears said of Donovan.

TJ Donovan is running against incumbent Attorney General Bill Sorrell in the Democratic primary. VTD Photo/Taylor Dobbs

Bennington State’s Attorney Erica Marthage also endorsed Donovan at the press conference Monday morning. Marthage is chair of the executive board of state’s attorneys, which Donovan sits on.

“I have a lot of respect for Erica and I’m proud to receive her endorsement,” Donovan said. “It’s also about endorsement from a fellow law enforcement professional.”

Donovan had already received endorsements from the Vermont Sherriff’s Association, more than 100 Vermont lawyers, Rutland Mayor Chris Louras and the Vermont Democratic Committee. He said he was grateful that lawmakers had come to his corner as well.

“It’s a huge boost to my campaign to have the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee back my candidacy,” Donovan said.

Donovan’s campaign has largely focused on smaller issues – namely, prescription drug abuse – but he said he is ready to take on larger entities, including Entergy, as attorney general.

“I have no reluctance taking on corporations,” Donovan said. “There’s a lot of issues that are affecting everyday Vermonters that we can work on too. It’s not a question of either or; it’s about doing more for Vermont.”

Donovan knows he is taking on an incumbent AG who has held the office for more than a decade, and that he’s at a disadvantage when it comes to name recognition. He said Monday’s endorsements will help him in the southern part of the state, but there is much more to be done.

“I know I’m an underdog,” Donovan said, “I know this is going to be an uphill struggle for me, but nothing worthwhile is easy, and this is something that I am committed to. I’m going to work to the end, and we’re going to every town, every village, every hamlet, and I’m going to work until I hear that rooster crow on August 28.”

~ Taylor Dobbs

VTDigger

Vermont State Hospital. VTD/Josh Larkin

The state is exploring whether a modular high-security facility could be built in Waterbury to house mental health patients who are required to be held securely under court order.

That news and several other developments in the state’s comprehensive mental health overhaul passed by the Legislature in April emerged from a meeting where Mental Health Commissioner Patrick Flood and mental health stakeholders met at National Life in Montpelier Monday.

Flood said the opening of an eight-bed temporary mental health acute-care facility in Morrisville is now likely to be a month later than the hoped-for Aug. 1 date. Renovations are ongoing at the site of the Lamoille Community Connections regional mental health agency building in the village.

Flood also announced that he has approved an eight-bed “step-down” intensive residential recovery facility in Westminster.

The facility is one of three – two eight-bed and one 15-bed units – called for under the state’s new mental health bill passed by the Legislature this April. The sweeping bill shifts  treatment focus more to community based care and disperses acute care among three replacement hospitals, a new 25-bed hospital to be built in Berlin and a 14-bed unit at the Brattleboro Retreat and six beds at the Rutland Regional Medical Center.

Meanwhile, the site of the Berlin hospital may be the subject of an emerging tussle between the Shumlin administration and some mental health advocates and lawmakers, based on comments made at Monday’s meeting by Rep. Anne Donahue, R-Northfield.

Regarding the department’s long-running effort to find secure housing for mental health patients, the state is now focusing on the 10-acre Waterbury flea market site on Route 2 north of the village, Flood said. The state had previously looked at several other possible sites, including a building the state owns at the Southeast Correctional Facility in Windsor.

Flood said the Waterbury location was proposed by a staffer as a possibility about a month ago and his department is considering whether a modular seven-bed unit is feasible for the purpose.

The state has been struggling since Tropical Storm Irene to find secure housing for mental health patients formerly housed at the Vermont State Hospital in Waterbury. The 54 beds at the state hospital, which was flooded out last August, included a locked unit.

Since then, the state has housed secure patients – five currently – at the Southern Vermont Correctional Center in Springfield. But Flood and other mental health officials have consistently said the prison setting is inadequate for the purpose and have searched high and low for another option as the state has revamped its mental health treatment model in the wake of Irene.

“It’s just not acceptable. We have to get out of there,” he said. Flood credited former state hospital staffers who are working in Springfield “for making that situation work as well as it has.”

He said state officials looked at a modular solution after Irene hit and decided it wouldn’t work but have since taken another look at the possibilities.

Putting the secure patients in a standalone locale is not ideal, since it is more expensive to staff a small facility, but he said that might be warranted if the modular facility works out.

Flood said he’s convinced a small facility is feasible and the owner of the flea market site so far seems open to the idea. The idea is preliminary at this point and permit issues are among the possible obstacles, he said. The site is zoned industrial and it’s uncertain how a modular state hospital unit fits in, he noted.

“This is really a one-of-a-kind facility,” he said.  “It’s residential but also a treatment facility with people coming and going.”

The issue of where the new Berlin state hospital location should be emerged from a question raised by Rep. Anne Donahue, R-Northfield, a strong mental health advocate and one of the key players in the mental health overhaul bill that passed this session.

Donahue cited an email she received from Secretary of Administration Jeb Spaulding saying that he favored the site near the regional library, which is considerably farther away from Central Vermont Medical Center than the other site under consideration adjacent to the hospital.

She asked Flood whether he supported that position, and Flood replied that “my view is the closer to the hospital the better.” In response to a question from Donahue, he said he “will make that point clear to the administration.”

Donahue said siting the new state hospital away from the medical center goes against all the testimony her Human Services Committee heard about the strong need to locate a state hospital within or next to a medical hospital. She said the more distant site would once again segregate those with mental health issues from the general population and continue the “stigma” that goes with mental health care.

For the administration to promote the more remote site, she said, “was just a slap in the face.”

She said all models today advocate integrating mental health and physical health care together when it comes to acute mental health care.

“These things are only going to get closer,” she said, noting the state should remember that it is designing a facility “for 50 years out into the future.”

However, Spaulding Tuesday said the administration is “listening carefully to the residents of Berlin and the mental health community” as it decides which of the two sites is the best option.

He said he indicated his preference because he wanted to be open and transparent in response to a question on what his view was on the two sites.

Spaulding argued that the site by the regional library had many advantages, noting it is “brighter, bigger and quieter” and also flatter and doesn’t have power lines running through it. “It’s a much nicer piece of property, he said.

But he added that numerous factors will go into the choice, saying the process is not going to cater to any one person’s views, a reference to Rep. Donahue.

“I’m in the process of trying to listen to as many people as possible and make a recommendation to the governor,” he said, adding that the department of mental health’s position “will count very heavily” in the decision.

Spaulding said he expected a choice would be likely sometime early in June.

Editor’s note: This story was updated with comments from Spaulding at 11:24 p.m. May 22.

VTDigger

Anya Rader Wallack. VTD file photo/Josh Larkin

An order this month by the state’s board in charge of health care reform indicates to insurance companies that they will have to rein in costs, or at least be more specific about where their customers’ money is going.

Earlier this month, the Green Mountain Care Board, appointed by Gov. Peter Shumlin to oversee health care reform efforts, approved a 2.9-percent increase in “administrative costs” for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont.

But it did so with some reservations — including concerns that the company was paying its employees more and offering bonuses at a time when many Vermonters are seeing their increased health insurance costs outpace their wages.

“Our review shows that the company’s 2012 administrative expense budget is more than 9% higher than its actual 2011 administrative expenses, and includes budgeting for employee wage increases and bonuses at a time when most Vermonters are not seeing similar, if any, increases in income,” the board’s order reads.

Anya Rader Wallack, the chair of the Green Mountain Care Board, said the board will be looking at all sorts of ways to control the constantly rising cost of health care as the state aims to implement a universal health care system by 2017.

“What you can expect to see is that we the board are going to take a hard look at all costs in the system as we implement our responsibility to try to make health care as affordable as possible,” Wallack said.

Under the federal Affordable Care Act, insurance companies are already required to spend the majority of their money on health care through what is called a medical loss ratio.

Wallack said Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont consistently meets this requirement, but the state is looking at all potential places where it can contain spending. Administrative expenses like employee bonuses for health insurance companies are just one example of those areas.

Wallack said that with the upward trend in health care costs, administrative costs have risen simultaneously.

Under H.559, which Gov. Peter Shumlin signed into law this week, the board will have 30 days instead of 10 to address rate increase requests by insurance companies once it receives a recommendation from the state Department of Financial Regulation (formerly known as the Department of Banking, Insurance, Securities and Health Care Administration).

BISHCA Commissioner Steve Kimbell. VTD file photo/Josh Larkin

Steve Kimbell, commissioner of the Department of Financial Regulation, recommended approval of the rate increase for Blue Cross Blue Shield. He said the 2.9 percent increase is less than the company has been asking for in years past.

Kimbell said the rates of increasing health care costs, including administrative costs, are complex. Containing those costs may also be the linchpin of making health care reform affordable.

Under both federal and state health care reform laws, he said, insurance companies will likely see more scrutiny of their attempts to increase customer rates.

“It’s safe to assume that enhanced scrutiny of health insurance rate filings is one of the intents of the Affordable Care Act,” Kimbell said.

Kevin Goddard, vice president of external affairs and sales for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont, said the insurance company welcomes the longer time frame for looking at administrative expenses.

“In terms of administrative expenses, we have worked very, very hard to control and reduce our administrative expenses over time,” he said. “We are eager to have the Green Mountain Care Board have more time to look at it and hopefully agree with our point of view.”

Goddard said the company has been under its 5 percent growth target it set a few years ago.

He said the longer time period will also allow the company to clarify issues such as increased compensation. Goddard said the company’s budgeted employee compensation increase is actually lower than the 3.8 percent average wage increase statewide between 2010 and 2011. He said the company does not offer bonuses per se, but it does allow salary-based incentive programs for employees.

VTDigger

A bucket loader leaves a wake along Irene-flooded Route 2 in Waterbury. VTD file photo/Josh Larkin

A boost from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and an uptick in state revenues could ease pressure on the state’s budget, officials say.

Last week officials announced that Vermont will receive roughly $30 million in additional public assistance for the Irene recovery effort.

Roads and infrastructure in 200 towns sustained hundreds of millions of dollars in damage when Tropical Storm Irene scoured central and southern Vermont on Aug. 28. The storm ruined 500 miles of roadway, totaled the Waterbury state office complex, damaged municipal buildings and destroyed hundreds of homes. Forty to 50 towns were severely damaged.

State and local officials have been restoring roads and infrastructure with the expectation that FEMA will reimburse much of the cost. All along, state officials had hoped the federal government would give the state extraordinary relief; the expectation was that Vermont would exceed the $127 per person or $80 million damage threshold and would qualify for the higher Public Assistance match rate.

Vermont is very close to hitting the threshold, which is based on actual damage expenditures. (FEMA has paid the state $64.7 million, so far.) But the additional relief wasn’t a sure bet until last Thursday.

Sue Minter, the state’s Irene Recovery Officer, said Vermont’s congressional delegation and the governor had to lobby hard for the funding and the fact that it came through is a big deal. “We were eligible, but it wasn’t sure thing,” Minter said. “These are uncertain times with regard to the (federal) budget. We didn’t take this for granted for a minute.”

Gov. Peter Shumlin personally beseeched the White House — as did Vermont’s congressional delegation — for a higher federal rate of reimbursement.

On Thursday, Shumlin announced that the president had given approval for the request. “This announcement marks a major milestone in our recovery from Tropical Storm Irene,” he said in a statement. “It will mean significant savings for municipal budgets across the state, and for the state budget as well. We are incredibly grateful to President Obama and the Congressional Delegation, and also to FEMA for this welcome news.”

FEMA will boost the reimbursement match rate for Public Assistance from the standard rate of 75 percent federal, 25 percent state and local to 90 percent federal, 10 percent state and local. The state and municipalities then share the match cost 50-50. Public assistance funding can be used to pay for the restoration of local roads, culverts, bridges and infrastructure, such as schools, water systems and municipal buildings.

The 15 percent increase in the match works out to roughly $30 million in additional dollars that will come to Vermont on top of the estimate of more than $160 million the state anticipates. About $26 million is for public assistance; $4 million is for the hazard mitigation buyout program, in which towns can work with landowners to permanently “undevelop” properties that are prone to future flood damage.

For some towns, the 12.5 percent match would have been extraordinarily onerous. The tiny town of Halifax (population 800), for example, sustained $5 million worth of damage to roads. At the higher match rate, the local taxpayers would have been on the hook for $625,000; the town’s annual budget is about $700,000.

http://vtdigger.org/2011/11/23/on-video-state-treasurer-frees-up-cash-flow-for-towns-hit-by-irene/

Lawmakers and the Shumlin administration recognized that the 75 percent federal, 25 percent state and local match rate could put small towns like Halifax and Wilmington in an untenable financial position. They set aside $5 million to cover costs for towns that would see a more than 3-cent increase in local property tax rates as a result of Irene repairs.

Minter said the shift to the 90 percent match rate won’t have an impact on towns. “They won’t see a difference — they’re already protected, the state budget will feel the difference,” Minter said.

An excavator clears mud, rocks and debris from a river in Woodstock in the days after Tropical Storm Irene. Photo by Angela Drexel

Steven Jeffrey, the executive director of the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, said municipal officials were grateful for the state’s assistance. “The state already guaranteed our percent was not going to be more than 3 cents,” Jeffrey said. “It made budgeting a lot easier for towns knowing what the cap was going to be.”

Now that FEMA has come through with the 90 percent federal, 10 percent state and local match, some of the $5 million set aside by the Legislature for towns that experienced extraordinary damage could be diverted by the Emergency Board to other Irene recovery costs.

That’s good news for the state budget. Jeb Spaulding, secretary of the Agency of the Administration, said the additional aid will make it easier for the state to cover uninsured damages to the Waterbury state office complex and the new Vermont State Hospital facility.

“The additional money from the feds is a reduction on what the state would otherwise have to spend,” Spaulding said. “It means we won’t need to ask the Emergency Board to provide more money for the Emergency Relief Assistance Fund. That’s where that money was going to come from.”

The Legislature set aside $16 million in the Budget Adjustment Act to replenish the fund, which had a balance of $600,000, according to budget officials. That pool of money is to be used for the town property tax relief and other Irene-related exigencies.

“It’s not like we have $30 million to spend on something else,” Spaulding said. “We’re still in a situation where we’re not exactly sure what parts of the state complex or state hospital FEMA is going to cover.”

Other good news could also help the Irene bottom line. Tax revenues increased slightly for the second month in a row. The state brought in $10.6 million more than expected in April. Up to $15 million in any surplus dollars from fiscal year 2012 are to be set aside for state infrastructure repairs related to Irene.

Towns, though better off because of the 3-cent cap, will still be affected. The Vermont League of Cities and Towns, which offers a self-funded insurance pool for municipalities, the Property and Casualty Intermunicipal Fund, paid out $13 million for town buildings and other infrastructure after Irene. Recently, the league had to find another reinsurance company for PACIF because rates increased by 30 percent to 40 percent and the level of coverage dropped under the firm it had worked with previously, Jeffrey said. Premium rates for municipalities, however, will remain flat.

Meanwhile, municipal officials continue the painstaking work of keeping the paper trail on track to meet federal reporting requirements. Minter estimates towns have submitted 3,000 worksheets, all of which are undergoing careful review by the regional FEMA office. Any project that costs more than $1 million for another level of review and scrutiny. All of the money goes to the state, which in turn reimburses towns.

State officials plan to unveil the latest Irene damage and cost estimates in a report in several weeks.

FEMA has paid $22 million to Vermonters for individual assistance for households and businesses damaged by Irene.

The federal government will give the state about $98 million for state and local highway repairs.

Correction: Insurance rates for municipalities will remain flat, though reinsurance rates are expected to go up. We originally reported that towns would be affected by recent changes in league insurance coverage.

VTDigger

At a University of Vermont meeting last weekend the Board of Trustees covered everything from sustainable models to market share. This video includes fact-filled highlights from May 17 sessions with a warning about remaining competitive from Interim President John Bramley, Provost Jane Knodell discussing strategic initiatives, a three-minute financial aid dialogue, and finishing up with lightning-quick adoption of new tuition and fees. (9.59)

“I probably shouldn’t make the analogy,” mused Interim President John Bramley at one point during his report to the University of Vermont’s Board of Trustees last Friday — but he went ahead anyway: “You can see the analogy with the banking industry.”

Bramley lamented that large institutions have economic advantages over small colleges and that a university education could again “become the preserve of the wealthy and the privileged.”

Bramley, who was temporarily promoted last August after the tumultuous departure of former UVM President Daniel Fogel, made the points forcefully during his final remarks as CEO before the arrival of UVM’s new president. Lawyer and former University of Minnesota Provost Thomas Sullivan is scheduled to begin work July 15. His name, and decisions that await his review, were mentioned frequently during a two-day trustee meeting.

Bramley pointed out that Harvard and MIT are already investing $60 million in online education.

“They’re not doing that altruistically,” he said, “but because they see a huge global education opportunity. Some institutions with huge resources will see themselves as the providers of education to an increasing proportion of the world’s students.”

A longtime member of the UVM faculty, Bramley has been chair of the Animal Sciences department, dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and provost and senior vice president of the university. He first served as acting president during Fogel’s illness in 2006. Since then and until 2011, he was president and CEO of the Windham Foundation.

Bramley’s prescription for competitiveness and sustainability for UVM, the largest post-secondary school in Vermont, is “a distinct identity, a demonstrated value and a competitive edge to prosper in the new educational world.” He told the trustees they must exploit the university’s location and experiential learning models and embrace technology in cost effective ways.

The tone of the discussion was guardedly optimistic at the end of what Board Chair Robert Cioffi called “a very good year” for the university.

It didn’t start out that way. Cioffi said after a “time of uncertainty and angst” that some “scars” from the media scrutiny surrounding Fogel’s departure last year remain.

The Dudley H. Davis Center at the University of Vermont. VTD file photo/Josh Larkin

Since then, he said, relations with state government have been “revitalized,” and UVM is back in a “position of strength.” In a reference to incoming president Sullivan, he said, “I have a pretty good feeling about this one.”

On Sunday Bramley conferred 2,552 undergraduate degrees on behalf of the school, plus 429 masters, 94 doctoral and 114 M.D. degrees to recipients from 39 states and 22 countries.

Suggestions for restructuring

Befitting the governing body of the state’s largest educational entity, trustees convened in committees and as a Committee of the Whole for more than a dozen hours at the top the Dudley Davis Center, a stately facility overlooking downtown Burlington.

Several dozen members of the university community – administrators, senior staff, plus a few faculty members and students – sat in on the deliberations. In the cavernous ballrooms they heard about proposed resolutions and listened to assorted reports, including Provost Jane Knodell’s less-than-rosy forecast that neither traditional demographics nor public funding trends, particularly for research, look that promising.

Still, UVM must become “more affordable for families and still deliver a high quality education,” Knodell explained, “and we’ve reached our full capacity in undergraduate enrollment with both housing and the ability to deliver courses. We won’t be able to grow our way out of the problem.”

The projected operations budget for next year will rise by 2.4 percent. This includes a $299 million general fund, plus other income and $170 million in restricted funds, for an impressive total of $614 million. The State of Vermont will contribute $40.7 million.

By comparison, the total revenue for the City of Burlington last year, including all government services, the schools, Burlington Electric Department, Burlington Telecom and the airport was $261 million.

Tuition will rise 3.5 percent, the lowest increase in several years. For resident Vermonters the cost will be $13,344, while out-of-state students will pay $33,672. The online tuition rate will be between $556 and $1,403 per credit hour. Spending in support of financial aid will increase 6.5 percent. Salary spending for all personnel will rise by 2 percent.

Bramley started with the positive. He called the planned tuition increases modest, listed numerous academic achievements, and touted a record first year for the University of Vermont Foundation, which was launched in January to handle future “fundraising, campaign planning, alumni relations, stewardship, operations, and staff development.”

“We are in excellent shape,” he concluded just before pivoting, “however, I am anxious about the future of higher education and our ability to adapt to the challenges.”

The trouble is that higher education costs have grown faster than health care, he said, exceeding families’ ability to pay. Jobs are harder to come by, and he said, “the wisdom of investing in a college education is increasingly in question.”

Tom Sullivan, the former senior vice president for Academic Affairs and Provost at the University of Minnesota, was named president of UVM on Feb. 22, 2012.

“Sadly, higher education is often presented or discussed now as a private benefit rather than a public good,” Bramley said. “We must convince others that we are a public good, worthy of public investment and essential for the future success of the nation.”

Echoing the rhetoric of recent protests against economic inequality Bramley issued a warning: “If we fail, a college education may once again become the preserve of the wealthy and the privileged, very much just the thing Justin Morrill was trying to lead the nation away from.” Morrill, a Vermont founder of the Republican Party and a U.S. senator, was instrumental in the development of federal funding for public colleges and universities.

This year, Bramley noted, he has received many emails and phone calls from parents seeking additional financial aid after decisions are made. He also mentioned what he views as a pattern of families – especially Vermonters – choosing to have their children begin in a community college, perhaps live at home or take courses online, and perhaps transfer in later. “The models are changing,” he stressed.

Among the prescriptions are “relying on content from others in some areas, and focusing our content on areas where we have a competitive advantage, and in turn making that available to others.” Bramley predicts that the university won’t be able to depend on “the 18- to 24-year-old model” for much longer.

Combining economic logic with populist sentiments, he called for change in “our way of doing business.” He said the university, as the only academic research facility in the state, is expected to partner with business and economic development efforts in the private sector. This means using Vermont’s edge to compete, he said, or else continuing to lose “market share.”

Bramley concluded that UVM can overcome socioeconomic challenges by adapting to new technology, employing distance learning and maintaining a quality on-campus experience. He envisions the university as “the center of an innovation hub with spokes statewide that link our students, faculty and entrepreneurs in an innovative learning and delivery system.”

Compensation and benefits

Executive pay has been a focus of attention at recent gatherings of the trustees. But a report on compensation for university officers other than the president attracted limited attention over the weekend.

In 2011 the 45 highest paid UVM employees made between $105,000 and $468,924, a broad range described in the document as an average of just 1 percent above the market median, based on a survey of college and university professionals.

This group of administrators includes vice presidents, deans, associate vice presidents, associate deans and other senior level officials. Those who report directly to top management – not including deans — make between 82 and 138 percent of the market median. Salaries for vice presidents reporting to the president or provost range from 92 to 117 percent of the market median. Officers reporting to the provost and deans range from 74 to 124 percent. The rest range from 66 to 155 percent, an average of 5 percent above the market median for equivalent jobs.

The practice of awarding signing and performance bonuses and deferred compensation agreements has almost ended, the report states. The remaining non-compensation benefits include a vehicle allowance and other items in the new president package, and Burlington Country Club memberships for two deans and the vice president for Student and Campus Life.

Last year UVM faced considerable criticism for the generous severance package provided to Fogel. In February the trustees hired Sullivan for more than $440,000 annually over the next three years. Sullivan will initially receive $417,000, plus $30,000 of deferred compensation during his first three years. Following that he will receive $40,000 in deferred compensation.

Board Chair Robert Cioffi has argued that Sullivan’s $347,600 base salary as provost in Minnesota, plus deferred compensation there, was similar to what UVM offered.

On the steps of UVM's administration building. VTD file photo/Greg Guma

On the same day in February when Sullivan was officially chosen, a report to the Board of Trustees featured faculty concerns about executive compensation and “corporatization” of the university. Staff Council President Ida Russin reported that staff members were unhappy with “unreasonable perks,” and felt that “Vermont has different cultural values and standards than the rest of the United States when it comes to executive pay.”

Asked about the report at the time Sullivan told VTDigger that he had not yet seen it. Board President Robert Cioffi later explained that “it was necessary to offer a competitive salary based on market realities.”

In his new summary of the issue, Bramley argues that UVM’s compensation policies are “sound and adequate,” “legally compliant,” and in line with best practices. He acknowledges “frustration and anger amongst some members of the community,” but attributes that primarily to procedures and policies that have not been sufficiently transparent.

Under a new recommended policy for administrative compensation, a person’s supervisor would be allowed to offer a base salary of no more than 10 percent above the national average – that is, without the approval of a supervisor. If the president is the one doing the hiring the decision would go to the Executive Committee of the trustees.

Russin did not mention compensation issues in her May written report. She focused instead on post-retirement medical benefits for staff. While praising the process and acknowledging that a “line needed to be drawn” on who is eligible, she said that many staff members with 25 years or more of UVM employment are ending up on the losing side of the line.

“Employees impacted by this change have expressed feelings of anger, frustration, and an inability to trust promises made by the administration,” Russin wrote. They feel “undervalued and unappreciated for all they have contributed to UVM throughout their careers.”

Getting strategic

Provost Jane Knodell said the university has developed a multi-year Strategic Initiative Project to combine “strategic investments” with a sustainable, financial model. The new initiatives include diversity and internationalization and trans-disciplinary research.

Knodell’s presentation on the university’s strategic planning process was a balance of cautionary arguments and pragmatic prescriptions.

“We know that we are facing a situation of declining demographics in the primary area of the country where we recruit students,” she said. “We know that public funding will be at best constant, likely to decline particularly for research.

“We know there is a need for us to become more affordable for families and still delivery a high quality education. And we’ve reached our full capacity in undergraduate enrollment with housing and just the ability to deliver courses,” she said. “We won’t be able to grow our way out of the problem now.”

Pointed questions and comments brought up the economic dangers of “structural encrustations,” the real prospects for long-term survival and whether the strategies being outlined were just “changing deck chairs.” Bramley countered that “these things don’t usually work top down. But they don’t usually work bottom up either.” His advice was a mixture of “leadership and engagement.”

Knodell promised that creative changes in “how we deliver courses” will emerge from the Strategic Initiative Project , which is expected to marshal investments and human resources through an elaborate, collaborative process. Described as roadmap, the Strategic Initiative Project could lead to initiatives like new graduate programs, replacement of public funding with new institutional research grants, intensified recruitment of New American, Abenaki and international students, and an improved focus on special areas like writing and career development.

The central idea, Knodell suggests, is to make UVM one of “the nation’s premier small research universities,” preeminent in its commitment to “liberal education, environment, health and public service.”

Plans so far include a new master of sciences degree in food systems and a smart grid program, already in motion with cooperation and financial support from Sandia laboratories and the Department of Energy. Some proposals await review by UVM’s new president. Others are under way or, like a pilot writing program, scheduled for launch within the next year or two.

Reaching all the objectives, and others that may emerge along the way, will require the success of an eight-year, estimated $597 million fundraising campaign that will be coordinated through the new UVM Foundation. The idea is to match sources of money with promising programs, faculty research projects, facilities improvements, and student support.

VTDigger

Sen. Dick Sears, right, and Gov. Peter Shumlin. Photo by Taylor Dobbs

It’s an epidemic.

Or perhaps it isn’t.

It’s killing Vermonters.

Probably, but nobody knows how many.

And it has several Vermont office-holders – starting with Gov. Peter Shumlin – in such a tizzy that they’re attacking one another.

Not that there’s anything new about politicians attacking one another. Republicans and Democrats do it all the time. But this spat does not pit Democrat Shumlin against his Republican opponent, Sen. Randy Brock of St. Albans. They’re on the same side. This is Democrats versus Democrats, basically Shumlin and the Senate against the House leadership.

Though the details are complex, the basics are simple: Some Vermonters are addicted to prescription drugs, and are getting them by illegal acquisition, theft, or various forms of chicanery.

By common consent, this is a serious problem, and the state has been dealing with it, both by expanding treatment through the Health Department and beefing up law enforcement.

In the recently concluded legislative session, lawmakers agreed on several provisions of a comprehensive bill that would make it more difficult for people to circumvent the security restrictions of the prescription drug system.

But on one item, they could not agree: whether the police should be allowed entry into the Vermont Prescription Monitoring System (VPMS), which records information on all prescriptions of Class 2, 3, and 4 drugs, without first getting a warrant.

The Senate wanted to give law enforcement that power. The House did not. The two sides could not reach agreement. The result? No bill at all, and one very angry governor.

“Those who didn’t pass the bill will regret it, and will be back next January perhaps more ready do the right thing.” Shumlin said in his last day remarks to the Senate. He added that prescription drug abuse was so “pervasive” in Vermont that probably no one in the state did not have a “family member, friend, neighbor” whose home, car, or business had not been “robbed by those who are addicted.”

A few days later, Shumlin was even harsher. Directly targeting “the House leadership,” (though not naming Speaker Shap Smith), Shumlin said, “The fact that the House didn’t agree with the Senate version of that bill, I think, is inexcusable. I think Vermonters will die because of it.”

The governor, said his spokesperson, Susan Allen, “feels strongly” about the matter.

When politicians feel strongly, they tend to speak hyperbolically. Actual data would indicate that in a state where burglary and most other crimes are on the decline, relatively few Vermonters have been impacted by prescription drug abuse, even with their friends, relatives and neighbors included.

Among the kinds of crime that are becoming less frequent is – as it happens – prescription drug abuse. According to the state Health Department, “the prevalence of prescription drug misuse in Vermont is declining or remaining steady for all drug categories.”

The Health Department’s latest figures, based on 2009 research by the federal government, indicates that 4.6 percent of adult Vermonters used prescription drugs improperly. That’s a small percentage, but it’s more than 23,000 people.

Vermont Department of Health Commissioner Harry Chen. VTD/Alan Panebaker

Or is it? When it comes to prescription drug abuse, opinions are firm but data are murky. That 4.6 percent figure, for instance, includes “people who have (improperly) used a prescription drug once as well as people who have a more serious problem,” said Barbara Cimaglio, the deputy commissioner for Drug and Alcohol Abuse Programs.

So the total includes the guy who hurt his back one day and used the prescription painkiller his wife got when she had her tooth pulled as well as the young tough breaking into a pharmacy to steal prescription drugs or into a home to steal money so he can buy the drugs on the black market.

And while the young tough is a danger to the people whose home he burgles, his situation is not really relevant to the controversy over whether the database should be searchable without a warrant. He’s not gaming the state’s prescription drug system. According to Public Safety Commissioner Keith Flynn, those street-corner purchases are probably (though here, too, the data don’t really prove the point) the way most Vermont prescription drug abusers get their goods. If that’s the case, the VPMS – and the squabble over warrants – applies to only a minor portion of the state’s drug abuse problem.

Cimaglio said many abusers in Vermont are otherwise law-abiding, respectable, usually middle-aged, people who grew dependant on pain-killers legally prescribed for them after injury or surgery. Some of them then do try to circumvent a system by getting friends or relatives to feign injury or illness so they can get painkillers prescribed, or by “doctor shopping,” trying to get duplicate prescriptions from several doctors.

These cases might show up on the VPMS database. On the other hand, these middle-aged people are probably not among those breaking into stores or houses. They may be among those buying drugs on the street corners, often from gang members who come to Vermont from southern New England or New York.

The data don’t really support – though they don’t conclusively refute – Shumlin’s prediction that “Vermonters will die” because the Legislature didn’t pass the bill. Vermonters do die from drug abuse. More than 100 died last year, but Public Safety Commissioner Keith Flynn said it was impossible to determine precisely how many died solely or even primarily from misuse of prescription drugs.

Of the 108 Vermonters who died of drug-related causes last year, 60 were accidents, said Flynn (citing figures from the Health Department’s Medical Examiner’s office), 18 involved “illicit substances,” though not necessarily prescription drugs.

The suggestion that there will be more such deaths without allowing police to get into the data base without a warrant would seem to lie on the spectrum somewhere between conjecture and demagoguery.

By squabbling over the warrant issue, officials convey the impression that they believe the drug problem to be solvable by law enforcement. They do not.

“We can’t fix this problem through arresting people,” said Rep. Ann Pugh, the South Burlington Democrat who chairs the House Human Services Committee. “This is a public health issue. People need treatment.”

Rep. Ann Pugh, center, discusses a bill dealing with access by law enforcement to prescription drug data. VTD/Alan Panebaker

Sen. Dick Sears, the North Bennington Democrat who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee and favors the warrantless searches as firmly as Pugh opposes them, agrees. A bill he sponsored this year, which did pass, provides for both stricter enforcement of gang-related prescription drug offenses and more treatment of addicts.

But both sides also agree that tighter law enforcement is needed, and even that police should be able to check the VPMS. They only disagree about whether law enforcement officers should first have to get a warrant.

“A lot of time the information we get from medical providers will not be in and of itself evidence of a crime,” Flynn said, and therefore would not justify getting a warrant. “Many times if we get a report (saying) this person … seems to be using abnormal amount of this drug.” If police could get into the system at that point, he said, they might be able to help the addict before he or she gets into worse legal trouble.

Sears, upset that some critics claimed that the Senate bill would allow “unfettered access” to the VPMS, said the Senate bill would provide “more protection for privacy” than a warrant requirement. Under the Senate bill, he said, “just four specially trained drug investigators” could get access to the database, and only after getting a tip from a druggist or health care provider. They would be liable for criminal prosecution if they broke those rules, he said.

But this was not enough protection for House leaders such as Pugh and Judiciary Committee Chair William Lippert of Hinesburg.

“Warrants are regularly applied for by law enforcement when they want to pierce the search and seizure protections” of the Constitution, he said. “We believe private, personal medical records are an extension of the privacy expectations of Vermonters.”

Furthermore, Lippert said, his committee had been warned that a warrantless search would immediately be challenged in court on constitutional grounds.

If precedent is any guide, that challenge would likely fail. Since 1904, Flynn said, Vermont law has allowed any law enforcement officer to walk into any drug store and see anyone’s prescription file, without a warrant, without even having to give the druggist a reason. When that law was challenged, in 1992, the challenge failed, if only by a 3-2 vote.

In State versus Welch, the Vermont Supreme Court agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court that the prescription drug industry was so “pervasively regulated” that neither druggists nor customers had any “expectation of privacy.”

As Lippert pointed out, that decision predates development of the drug database as well as congressional passage in 1996 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) designed to enhance patient privacy. It is hard to predict whether the court would issue the same ruling today, or whether the Legislature would vote today to give law enforcement that power to see everyone’s drug records. Though no one has taken a poll, it is reasonable to suspect that most Vermonters think they have – or at least that they should have – an “expectation of privacy” about records that the court acknowledged “contain extremely private and potentially embarrassing information.”

This battle is likely to be resumed next year, if not earlier, with all contestants remaking all points.

With one point continuing not to be made. Both Sears and Flynn said outside gang members who peddle prescription drugs are attracted to Vermont for two reasons: because there are potential customers here, and because it’s very easy to get guns in Vermont.

Raising an interesting question: Would moderate gun control laws similar to those in neighboring states be as effective in combating prescription drug abuse as allowing police to get into the VMPS without a warrant?

Don’t expect any elected official to bring that up.

VTDigger

Gov. Peter Shumlin gives a speech with lawmakers and renewable energy advocates at a bill signing in East Montpelier.

Gov. Peter Shumlin touted Vermont’s progress in the renewable energy field with the signing of three bills at a small hydroelectric and solar project Friday.

The 2012 energy bill, the most prominent of the three, will more than double the amount of favorable contracts available for small in-state renewable energy projects. That bill also holds a provision that will allow utility customers to opt out of “smart meters” free of charge.

That “standard offer” program guarantees above-market power contracts for 127.5 megawatts of local projects such as solar and hydro projects. Currently the program allows for 50 megawatts, and fewer than 10 are built.

Various heads of renewable energy companies showed up to support the bill.

Shumlin said it will be good for business.

“I think the proof that Vermont is getting this right is in the simple fact that Department of Labor statistics show that Vermont has more green high-tech jobs per capita than any state in the nation,” he said. “We are getting this right.”

This year’s energy bill ensures a guaranteed price for renewable projects that produce less than 2.2 megawatts of electricity — lending stability to the often struggling renewable power industry.

It falls short of requiring utilities to purchase and account for a set amount of renewable energy through what is called a renewable portfolio standard.

A renewable portfolio standard would have required utilities in Vermont to purchase renewable energy and retire the renewable energy credits. Under current law, utilities have to meet a percentage of their electric load from renewable energy projects. Power companies in Vermont can then sell the renewable energy credits. Other states require utilities to retire the credits.

That part of the bill came out during the final few days of the legislative session when it appeared the energy bill might not survive at all. The shift came amid persistent pressure from large industry groups arguing it would increase electric rates an unreasonable amount.

Shumlin said he has reservations about the renewable requirement from the beginning.

“I have concerns about walking the tightrope between building our renewables and keeping our current electric rates low,” he said. “Because we know there’s no greater job motivator than affordable electricity, I thought it made more sense to go with a predictable standard offer and leave the renewable portfolio standard for another day.”

The fundamental difference between the two approaches is that one requires utilities to buy a set amount of renewable energy (it would have been 35 percent by 2032), and the other allows developers to apply for the favorable contracts in the standard offer while letting utilities sell credits from that energy to other states that have renewable portfolio standards.

Tony Klein, chair of the House Committee on Natural Resources and Energy, said when it comes to getting projects built in Vermont, the standard offer is more efficient.

“The standard offer really builds real things,” Klein said. “An RPS [renewable portfolio standard] doesn’t build anything. It’s just an academic accounting system.”

Some environmental groups disagree.

Ben Walsh, an energy advocate for the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, said the standard offer will help incentivize more in-state projects, but Vermont should have an accounting mechanism also.

“The renewable portfolio standard not being included was a blow for clean energy,” Walsh said. “A complete energy policy would include an RPS.”

Others think the law goes too far and will cause spikes in energy costs for ratepayers.

Guy Page, communications director for the Vermont Energy Partnership, a coalition of businesses that supports the continued operation of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, said the stability provided for renewables in the 20-year contract is a good thing for the renewable industry, it seems like an artificial cost hike that ratepayers will have to swallow.

In its tumultuous journey through the Statehouse, the energy bill became part of another bill dealing with smart meters — which offer more accurate and timely data on energy usage than traditional analog meters.

The state’s two largest utilities plan to roll out the meters as part of efforts to reduce peak electric demand, when power is most expensive and comes from the dirtiest sources.

Utilities had planned to charge customers $10 a month who opted out of the technology. Some customers have expressed concerns over the radio frequencies emitted by the meters and potential privacy issues. Under the bill signed Friday, customers will be able to opt out without having to pay the charge.

Gov. Shumlin said he was “pro-choice” on the issue but thought Vermonters would opt in once they realized the smart meters could save them money on their energy bills.

“I’m firmly pro-choice when it comes to lots of issues,” Shumlin said. “I do believe inevitably Vermonters should decided what kind of meters they want on their home. Having said that, I think when Vermonters figure out the extraordinary energy efficiency and money saved they can get from utilizing smart meters, they’ll adopt smart meters.”

Klein was more adamant about his opposition to the fee.

“I think that if smart meters are so wonderful, and they’re going to save so many people and the industry so much money why are they whining and complaining about a few people keeping what they have,” Klein said. “The point is they should be able to keep what they have.”

The governor also re-signed bills dealing with expedited permitting for small hydroelectric projects and creating a uniform tax for solar plants.

VTDigger