Contact
Guy Page,
Communications Director,
Vermont Energy Partnership
802-505-0448,
page@vtep.org

Plant Continues to Provide Important Economic and Environmental Benefits

Montpelier, VT/May 23, 2012 — In conjunction with tonight’s public meeting by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Vermont Yankee, Brad Ferland, President of the Vermont Energy Partnership, which represents more than 90 businesses, labor and community leaders throughout the state, issued the following statement:

“Vermont Yankee continues to demonstrate that it is a safe facility. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, following an exhaustive review by a panel of independent inspectors throughout 2011, once again determined Vermont Yankee achieved the NRC’s highest safety rating – green.

“This has obviously been a difficult and uncertain year for the hundreds of hard working employees at Vermont Yankee and we applaud their commitment to ensuring the plant operates safely, day in and day out. Through their diligence and dedication, Vermont Yankee continues to earn the NRC’s highest safety rating. These workers deserve the respect and appreciation of all Vermonters.

“Vermont Yankee is critically important to Vermont’s economic growth and prosperity. Vermont’s leadership in green jobs, as announced earlier this year by the U.S. Bureau of Labor, is due in part to the hundreds of green jobs at the zero-carbon Vermont Yankee facility. As Vermont plans for the future, Vermont Yankee should continue to play an important role in helping Vermont remain a great place to live and work.”

# # #

The Vermont Energy Partnership (www.vtep.org) is a diverse group of more than 90 business, labor, and community leaders committed to finding clean, affordable and reliable electricity solutions. Its mission is to educate policy makers, the media, businesses, and the general public about why electricity is imperative for prosperity, and about the optimal solutions to preserve and expand our electricity network. Entergy, owner of Vermont Yankee, is a member of the Vermont Energy Partnership.

VTDigger

Daniel Webster, the 19th-century senator from New Hampshire, argued before the U.S. Supreme Court “the power to tax is the power to destroy.” Responding to an attempt by one or more states to tax an entity out of existence, the renowned orator sounded a cautionary note that the governor and Legislature of Vermont would do well to consider.

The current target for extinction by taxation is, of course, Vermont Yankee. Today the state’s largest electrical power plant pays $5 million annually in a “generation tax” negotiated as a long-term agreement when they purchased Vermont Yankee, and in the process, rescued Vermont utilities from financial ruin. Having failed last fall to close the plant by interfering in the regulatory process, the Legislature now wants to tax the golden goose out of existence with a unilateral increase of their generation taxes to a whopping $12.5 million per year.

The rationale for such a reckless increase fails examination. Some legislators are saying the proposed “generation tax” increase merely replaces the Clean Energy Development Fund allocation. In fact, that originally negotiated payment was the result of a three-way negotiation, which resulted in a memorandum of understanding, with an agreed-upon cap on the total amount of payments.

Punitive taxation is not in the state’s best interest. If Vermont has learned anything from its failure in federal court, it is that the strategy of “one set of rules for Vermont Yankee and fair play for everyone else” will not bear judicial or market scrutiny. Such a policy is feckless, expensive and not befitting of the Green Mountain State. Even Assistant Attorney General Scott Kline warned the Senate that this tax increase exposes the state to legal risk.

Second, like many poorly conceived plans, there will be unintended consequences. Such an obvious overreach will distress other Vermont businesses. Indeed, this kind of legislation sends out a clear message that Vermont’s government is hostile to business.

Trust in fair, impartial dealing in public policy is vital to attracting and retaining businesses, which create good jobs. Employers have to believe that Vermont is a place where they can get a square deal and won’t be unfairly treated based on the political winds of the day. During this year’s legislative debate on this tax, questions surfaced about the administration of the Clean Energy Development Fund, including allegations that one renewable energy developer gained millions of dollars in grants from a bid system that he helped design and originate. There have been other charges that large sums have been spent, not to develop new sources of clean energy in Vermont, but to subsidize the purchase of expensive home solar systems by high-income Vermonters.

It might be time for an impartial audit of the Clean Energy Development Fund, perhaps by a neutral third party or by the Vermont state auditor. It could lay the facts out for all Vermonters and settle any question of self-dealing.

Selective, punitive taxation is bad policy with negative consequences on job growth that poisons the well of cooperation between government and the private sector essential to growing our economy.

Ultimately, we all lose when the taxpayer and voter is left holding the bill.

VTDigger

Vermont Yankee on the banks of the Connecticut River

The state Department of Public Service is scrutinizing recent actions by Entergy Corp.

The department is questioning whether the 20-year license extension the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the company in 2011 is valid.

State officials say Entergy doesn’t have a Clean Water Act permit.

Sarah Hofmann, deputy commissioner of the Department of Public Service, said the federal NRC should have required the company to get certification from the state that the plant would not violate state water quality standards.

“Our allegation is that they needed to have that in order to get their license renewed,” Hofmann said. “Entergy’s claim is that they are still operating under their old one.”

Elizabeth Miller, commissioner of the Department of Public Service, will be presenting oral arguments to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington on Wednesday.

Vermont Yankee was originally scheduled to shut down in March of this year. Entergy continues to run the 40-year-old plant because it has the NRC license and a federal judge ruled in January that the state doesn’t have the authority to pre-empt federal law.

Entergy bought the plant in 2002, and applied for a new license in 2006. In 2010, the Vermont Senate voted against allowing the Public Service Board to issue a new license. That decision was based on a 2006 law allowing legislative approval. Earlier this year federal district court Judge Garvan Murtha found the state law unconstitutional, ruling that it was pre-empted by federal statutes. The Vermont Attorney General has appealed that decision.

Entergy recently requested approval for a certificate of public good from the Vermont Public Service Board.

A lot hangs in the balance in the legal arena — and with Vermont Yankee’s financial situation.

A decision in federal court could affect the outcome of the Public Service Board proceeding, and what the D.C. Circuit decides could affect the plant’s federal permit.

It appears that Entergy is also trying to spin off its transmission business and merge it with a separate company called ITC holdings. According to an Entergy spokesman, however, this will likely not affect Vermont at all.

On April 30, ISO-New England, the region’s electric grid operator, accepted a bid by Entergy to de-list the Vernon plant from its 2015-16 “capacity commitment period.” ISO-New England rejected previous requests from Vermont Yankee to be removed from the futures market.

But in its most recent filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, it stated “the ISO determined that Vermont Yankee is not needed for reliability for the 2015-16 Capacity Commitment Period.”

ISO New England stated that was because it expects transmission upgrades and other resources to be in place by that time.

The one thing that does appear certain is that the plant will continue operating while the legal and regulatory proceedings are pending.

Public Service Board decision in 2013, at the earliest

Wrangling over Vermont Yankee’s new permit will last late into 2013, at least, under a calendar set by the Public Service Board.

For some parties in the Public Service Board docket, the schedule set by the board drags it out too far.

“It’s taking too long,” said Sandra Levine, senior attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation in Vermont. “This case could easily be decided in less than a year and a half. Entergy is dragging its feet.”

The amended schedule sets a deadline for intervenors at June 18. Final filings are due Aug. 26, 2013, hence the year and a half timeline.

Entergy requested the later time line, telling the board it could not prepare testimony until June 29. The Department of Public Service, which represents Vermont ratepayers in front of the board, asked for a May 15 filing date.

CLF’s proposed schedule, which the board rejected, advanced hearings by four months.

The board will hold public hearings on Nov. 5 in Vernon and another on Nov. 19 via Vermont Interactive Television.

Levine said the longer the process takes, the longer Vermonters will have to wait to see the plant close.

The parallel litigation in federal court over the Vermont laws caused the board to start over and create a new record to avoid using “preempted” materials in the record.

Not all the intervenors in the docket were as concerned about the lengthy schedule.

“This is a very long process,” said Jared Margolis, an attorney representing the New England Coalition, a group that wants to see the plant close. “We’re starting from scratch.”

He said the longer schedule will allow the board to make an informed decision based on a valid record.

The parties will file their first round of written testimony June 29.

The continuing dispute has proved problematic for Entergy, the state and environmentalists alike.

For Entergy, ongoing litigation with Vermont, prompted the company to file an “impairment evaluation” addressing the uncertainty of the plant’s continued operation on the value of the company.

The company has been filing such reports since 2010 about the plant’s potential value in the future.

In an April 26 earnings conference call, Entergy CFO Leo Denault said the estimated value of the plant, as opposed to what the company’s books said, resulted in a $356 million pre-tax “impairment charge.”

The dip in stock value reported by the company was directly related to the plant’s uncertain continued operation.

“[T]he impairment derives from the unique legal and State regulatory processes surrounding Vermont Yankee, which make it uncertain that the plant will operate until the license expires in 2032,” Denault said. “Absent this uncertainty, the evaluation for impairment would not have been required.”

VTDigger

There is the perception among some state leaders that industry cares only about the bottom lin” and not about their communities. It simply isn’t true. Weidmann Electrical Technology Inc. promotes an active policy of civic engagement. Many of our employers have responded eagerly to a company policy that encourages participation in local government, local fire and rescue squads, and civic organizations.

Our employees know that just as they rely on the broader Northeast Kingdom community, so too can the Northeast Kingdom rely on them. We are all good neighbors. Above all, the company’s senior management is gratified to be able to provide hundreds of stable, good-paying jobs, the real-life engines of the American dream for so many families. Good communities need good jobs.

As vice president and general manager of Weidmann, a manufacturer and employer of 490 people in the USA and 280 in Vermont, I am appreciative of the Vermont Legislature’s past responsiveness to our tax concerns. We have been the beneficiaries of tax credits and stabilized payment agreements. The employees of our company share in my gratification that our citizen lawmakers understand the need for businesses large and small to have fair, stable taxation. These actions demonstrate an appreciation for the employment, property tax and “social capital” benefits that a manufacturing plant can offer a community. In its dealings with the State of Vermont, Weidmann has been treated with respect, appreciation and attention to detail.

So it is with some trepidation that I note the Vermont Legislature’s new tax policy for another large Vermont manufacturer, Vermont Yankee. In an apparent attempt to recoup the revenue loss upon the expiration of an agreement to fund renewable energy projects, the Legislature has approved a “generation tax” increase from $5 million to $12.5 million. In my experience as a manufacturing executive, I cannot recollect a state government seeking such a drastic increase on a large, job-creating manufacturer.

I see many parallels between Weidmann in the Northeast Kingdom and Vermont Yankee in Windham County. Both companies provide good-paying, socially conscious employment in the midst of a challenged local economy. The long-term economic challenges of the Kingdom are well known. Less well known is the fact that Windham County faces similar challenges. According to a 2011 study by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the percentage of residents there living under the federal poverty line is higher than Vermont statewide. Average earnings are $5,000 less per worker. Unemployment is almost 19 percent higher. One in five are “food insecure” and 43 percent are eligible for reduced-price school lunches.

While the Public Service Board and others determine the long-term destiny of Vermont Yankee, it would be well for the Legislature to recognize the day-to-day value of this manufacturer to its community.

I am aware of the difficulties between Vermont Yankee and the State of Vermont. I am also aware of how easy it is for state government to impact the decision-makers of an industry. Several years ago our St. Johnsbury plant was on the “shortlist” for an expansion that would have added jobs. Due in large part to concerns about Vermont’s regulatory and tax environment, these jobs eventually went overseas, to Switzerland.

When it looks like a state is playing favorites, even the presumed “favorites” can get nervous. There is a hidden cost to a state’s willingness to practice less than fair, across-the-board taxation. The State of Vermont puts itself into the weak position of having to assure industry leaders, “trust us, we won’t treat YOU that way.” It would be better for all concerned to avoid the temptation to inflict huge, unannounced tax increases on manufacturers.

VTDigger

Vermont Yankee on the banks of the Connecticut River. Photo by Deborah Lazar/Special to The Commons

Entergy Corp. stock has dipped by almost a dollar per share in part because of an “impairment” in connection with the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant.

According to a an earnings report by the Louisiana-based company that owns Vermont’s only nuclear plant, actions by the state of Vermont to shut down the plant this year triggered quarterly evaluations by Entergy.

The company’s quarterly report shows that the Vermont Yankee asset impairment represented a $1.26 negative impact on earnings per share.

According to the company’s report, “A number of factors and inputs are used in the Vermont Yankee impairment evaluation, including the status of pending legal and state regulatory matters, as well as assumptions about future revenues and costs of the plant.”

The company is currently in litigation with the state in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Both Entergy and the state are appealing a lower court decision that found that two state laws requiring legislative approval for the plant to continue operating violated the U.S. Constitution.

The “impairment,” caused in part by legal wrangling with the state, does not change Entergy’s future outlook, according to its quarterly report.

“This impairment does not reflect a change in Entergy’s point of view of the economic value of the plant assuming continued operation through 2032, nor does it impact the company’s continued commitment to invest to assure safe operations of the plant, which is always the top priority,” the report states.

The report states that it also does not reflect a change in the company’s point of view on the legal and state regulatory proceedings surrounding the plant.

Entergy is also seeking a new license from the Vermont Public Service Board. Its state license expired March 21 along with its contracts with state utilities. The plant continues to operate while the proceeding continues. All the power is being sold out of state.

~Alan Panebaker

Scott scolds Senate for lack of decorum

Though Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell is the Senate leader, it’s Lt. Gov. Phil Scott who presides over the Senate Chamber.

And from his perch at the elaborate wood podium in the center of the Green Room, Scott has been the stoic arbiter of disputes in what by all accounts has been a contentious session.

But even Scott, who has been the voice of reason in the Senate, had enough on Friday morning. Senators at that point had worked through two back-to-back late nights and early morning calls. Tempers flared throughout the 12- to 14-hour floor debates. It wasn’t the first day that individual senators stood up to apologize for bad behavior.

“I want to voice my concern about the decorum of the Senate,” Scott said. “I’ve thought about it a lot. I know how frustrated, tired and irritable you are. Just because we disagree with someone reporting a bill or making a comment … or might be bored with what they say doesn’t mean we can interrupt them.”

The points of order, points of personal privilege, interruptions and amendments to amendments to amendments have been at an all-time high this year.

Scott said he tries to make points of order based on the rules of the Senate, not as a way to stifle the debate, “because I think it makes it harder in some ways.”

The debate on Thursday he said was healthy and good, but “I would ask you to remember we’re Vermonters first.”

“The Senate is a body that treats each other with respect,” Scott said. “I want to remind you of that … just remember who we are. We’re better than that.”

~Anne Galloway

Speaker says budget bill will be stripped of amendments

Speaker of the House Shap Smith Friday said he expected the budget legislation, which took on multiple unrelated amendments Thursday in the Senate, to be stripped back down in conference committee.

One Senate amendment would grant child-care providers the right to unionize and collectively bargain with state government.

“I made it clear that if [that amendment] came over on the budget, I would not be able to support it as part of the conference,” Smith said.

The lack of support, he said, is due to the way the legislation is presented, not a disagreement with its ideals.

“I believe it’s an issue of great importance for Vermonters, and I believe that should stand alone for an up or down vote or on a bill that actually deals with labor issues,” Smith said.

~Taylor Dobbs

House won’t budge on philosophical exemption

After the Senate approved a bill that would eliminate the philosophical exemption for children’s vaccines Monday, the legislation has been largely neutralized after it met resistance from the House.

The legislation was drafted in the Senate and would remove the philosophical exemption, which currently allows parents to let their children go unvaccinated if they have “philosophical convictions opposed to immunization.”

The Senate approved the bill, S.199, on Monday. The House voted to keep the exemption, which is utilized by about 350 families in the state. There are also exemptions for religion and for children with weak immune systems who are likely to have health complications from vaccines.

Rep. Michael Fisher, D-Addison, chair of the House Committee on Health Care, said the House agrees that immunization rates are a concern, but advocated a different approach.

“Given the numbers and given the level of concern,” Fisher said, “the house position is that we need to employ education and outreach.”

Sen. Kevin Mullin, who serves on the Senate Health and Welfare Committee and introduced the bill in the Senate, said public health should prevail.

Mullin said the House is “bending over backwards” to accommodate the concerns of the 350 families who use the exemption, and that the Senate was “amazed” public good doesn’t win out.

Fisher said the House has compromised on the issue, adding language that would suspend the philosophical exemption if immunization rates for certain diseases fell below 90 percent statewide. Senators advocated for school or school-district level monitoring and suspension, but the the House would not accept that plan.

“It’s the Senate’s turn to make a proposal or accept the house idea,” Fisher said in an interview.

It seems senators are taking the latter path; the conference committee is set to meet again Monday to discuss the House’s changes to a working group tasked by the legislation with studying how to best protect “immunocompromised students” who are put at risk by unvaccinated peers.

~Taylor Dobbs

Senate passes search and rescue study bill

The Vermont Senate today passed a version of a search and rescue reform bill that was developed by Sen. Vince Illuzzi, R/D-Essex-Orleans, in the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs. The Senate version differs significantly from H.794, the search and rescue bill which passed unanimously in the House last week, most notably by omitting interim search and rescue protocols and by calling for licensing of state emergency medical services providers. The Senate bill also calls for a smaller legislative study committee, and requires it to examine both search and rescue and emergency medical services.

Illuzzi said that a small legislative study committee will be best able to pull together the disparate volunteer search and rescue groups around the state, and that the interim protocols envisioned by the House search and rescue bill were unnecessary.

“Since the Vermont State Police already has modified its search and rescue protocols, now automatically alerting the local fire department of a potential search and rescue need, we felt that no interim law change is necessary,” Illuzzi said. “We would like to wait until the study recommendations are developed before enacting legislation.” He said examining both search and rescue protocols and emergency services licensing and organizational requirements will improve emergency services for Vermonters.

Members of the family of Levi Duclos — the 19-year-old hiker whose death from hypothermia on a popular hiking trail in Ripton this past January sparked public criticism of Vermont State Police search and rescue procedures — were present when the Senate bill passed. The family thanked the wide array of legislators, volunteer search and rescue personnel and other members of the public who have worked to speed legislation through the House and Senate since Levi’s death.

The family’s support, however, is for the House version of the search and rescue bill.

“The House bill not only sets up interim protocols, thereby not leaving those decisions to the VSP, but also defines a new Incident Command System and mandates assessing, utilizing and training resources,” said Kathy Duclos, Levi’s aunt. “None of these things will happen for at least another year if the language in the House bill, H.794, is not utilized in the final bill. It would be a shame to not make use of this well-researched and thoughtful bill.”

The legislation will now move to conference committee where members of the House and Senate will resolve differences between the two versions. Rep. Willem Jewett, D-Addison, is optimistic that action will be taken before the legislative session closes. He said the support of the Duclos family and friends for the more extensive House bill “will position us well in any negotiations that may be necessary with the Senate.”

~Cindy Ellen Hill

Editor’s note: This story was updated at 7:27 a.m. April 28. Correction: Sen. Mullin is a member of the Senate Health and Welfare Committee, not the chair, as previously reported.

VTDigger

Contact
Guy Page
Phone: 802-505-0448
Email: page@vtep.org

Montpelier, VT/April 25, 2012 – The Vermont Energy Partnership urges the Vermont Senate to reject the $7.5 million tax increase the Shumlin Administration is trying to impose on Vermont Yankee. The Administration’s proposal is contained in the Miscellaneous Tax Bill (H. 782) which the Senate Finance Committee has approved.

This $7.5 million tax hike will create legal risks for Vermont taxpayers, create an unfair and unwelcome precedent for taxing businesses in the state, and threaten the loss of 600 high-quality jobs and $100 million a year from the Vermont economy.

The Administration continues its efforts to shut Vermont Yankee down, only this time it is by taxing VY out of business. To target one company with a 140 percent increase is punitive and the Vermont Senate should reject it. That is not the way we do business in Vermont.

Vermont Assistant Attorney General Scott Kline, in testimony before the Senate Finance Committee last week said, “If you decide to go forward and increase (the tax), you should be aware that we think there is a risk associated with that.”

The Vermont Energy Partnership hopes that fairness and common sense will prevail in the Senate and that this proposal from the Shumlin Administration will be defeated. To do otherwise could open the door again to more law suits involving the state and more costs for Vermont taxpayers.

Last year a Vermont federal judge ruled the state legislature has illegally interfered with the renewal of Vermont Yankee’s federal operating license. That ruling is currently under appeal.

The state says the proposed generation tax increase merely replaces the Clean Energy Development Fund assessment, but in fact, that assessment was based on two memorandums of understanding (MOUs), one with an agreed upon cap on the total amount of payments. The other only requires a further payment if power prices are higher than a specified amount in the MOU, which is not the case today.

Vermonters will not accept another round of legal bills and millions of dollars in additional penalties caused by the legislature’s lack of planning for the continuation of the Vermont Clean Energy Development Fund (CEDF). The future funding of the CEDF requires long-term, sustainable planning, not a fruitless, end-of-session money grab from a single source that is virtually guaranteed to face intense legal scrutiny.

The proposed tax increase sends Vermont down a slippery slope for singling out specific employers for legislative retribution through tax policy. This will not go unnoticed. Other manufacturers and employers will conclude, justifiably, ‘this year it is Vermont Yankee, next year it could be our turn.’ Their expectation of fair, stable, nonpolitical taxation, as the Vermont way of doing business and public policy, so essential for planning for a healthy future, will be eroded. Tax policy relies in part on precedent: what survived unchallenged before will be tried again.

In light of the above, the Vermont Energy Partnership recommends that the legislature:

Abandon the $7.5 million generation tax increase for a less risky, more equitable solution; and
Continue the ongoing policy discussion of creative, broad-based Vermont Clean Energy Development Fund funding sources, as well as spending goals.

VTDigger

The tax would charge $0.0025 per kilowatt hour produced by Vermont Yankee. The tax would raise about $12.5 million annually.

Louisiana-based Entergy, the plant’s owner, pays $5 million currently in the generating tax. The company also pays about $6 million annually into the state Clean Energy Development Fund, which helps pay for renewable energy projects. The funding for the CEDF is required by two agreements with the state. Those agreements expired this year.

Entergy is seeking a new operating license from the Vermont Public Service Board. The Department of Public Service has asked that the board require Entergy to continue making those payments, but Entergy says it will put the money in escrow until it gets assurance that it can continue operating and that the state does not impose a tax to replace those monies.

Under the administration’s proposal, the tax would generate $9.5 million fiscal year 2013. The law would not go into effect until July, so the state would not receive the full $12.5 million it would in 2014. In 2013, $2.9 million would go to the general fund and $2.1 million to the education fund. Three million dollars would go to the CEDF, and $1.5 million to Vermont Technical College and the Community College of Vermont. Another $3 million would be up for grabs in 2014, and could potentially go to the clean energy fund.

The Vermont Energy Partnership, a coalition of businesses that supports Vermont Yankee’s continued operation, says the tax is a punitive measure aimed at an adversary in federal court.

“The Administration continues its efforts to shut Vermont Yankee down, only this time it is by taxing VY out of business,” a release from the partnership said. “To target one company with a 140 percent increase is punitive and the Vermont Senate should reject it.”

Both the Vermont Attorney General’s office and legislative council told the finance committee the tax could have some risk of a legal challenge by Entergy.

Earlier this year, a federal judge ruled in favor of Entergy in a lawsuit it filed against the state. The judge deemed two Vermont laws requiring legislative approval for the plant’s continued operation unconstitutional.

“We don’t feel it’s punitive,” she said. “We feel like it’s their fair share.”

Gov. Peter Shumlin said in his weekly press conference Wednesday that he thinks the proposal is sound tax policy and not an intervention into the Public Service Board process.

“It is the job of the Legislature and it is the constitutional obligation of the Legislature to set tax policy for all taxpayers in the state of Vermont, and what the finance committee did was continue as they have in the past to make a tax judgment about what they thought an appropriate tax would be for a generating facility that they thought was going to be shut down on schedule in March 2012 and obviously that’s not going to happen so what they’ve done is their constitutional duty,” Shumlin said.

Correction: The original version of this story said the tax rate for Vermont Yankee would be 0.0025 cents per kilowatt hour. It is actually $0.0025 or a quarter of a cent per kilowatt hour.

VTDigger

As a small business owner, I find it both alarming and concerning our Legislature is pulling a “King George” and randomly passing taxes to fill its coffers. I understand the purpose of taxing business and personal revenues, but there is a point where logic disappears and political interests take over. I believe the latest effort by our state’s elected officials to levy a whopping 120 percent tax on Vermont Yankee crosses that line.

Vermont Yankee already pays millions in taxes – money that funds everything from our state’s clean energy initiatives to education. It is a vital part of Windham County’s economic structure and a major contributor to our state’s general fund. But there comes a time when enough is enough.

Vermont will ultimately suffer if it sets this kind of precedent: Our larger businesses and industries will fear being targeted by the state government and consider moving their operations to New Hampshire or Massachusetts. We need to balance our pursuit of renewable energy with existing low-cost base-load power we receive from Vermont Yankee. The expensive alternatives minus Yankee will only hamper Vermont’s ability to attract new companies to set up shop here.

We cannot afford any more blows to our already struggling economy; it’s time to draw the line in the sand and say “enough is enough.”

VTDigger

Contact
Marcia Gagliardi
Phone: 800.215.8805
Email: haley.antique@verizon.net

BRATTLEBORO and VERNON, Vermont—Costumed in hazmat suits and toting Geiger counter props, eight members of the Shut It Down Affinity Group with three supporters leafleted with a Can Fukushima Happen Here? brochure in downtown Brattleboro on Tuesday, April 24. They then appeared in nearby Vernon to block the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant gate by chaining themselves to it and stretching crime scene tape across the driveway.

Shut It Downers designed their presence in keeping with Earth Day the past Sunday in order to call attention to Vermont Yankee’s danger to the land, air, and water, their statement said.

“We were able to breach security at the power plant by getting through the second gate,” said Hattie Nestel, 73, of Athol, Massachusetts, one of those arrested. “It was the first time we were able to lock the gate shut from the inside.”

Vernon police arrived within fifteen minutes to enforce the request of Entergy officials that the women leave the premises or be arrested for trespass. The eight women were transported to Vernon police headquarters, where they were booked and released. No court date was set. Entergy Corporation operates Vermont Yankee.

Six women of the Shut It Down group recently appeared in Windham County District Court’s Criminal Division for a pretrial hearing involving their closure of the power plant on August 30, 2012. Judge David Suntag presided at pretrial proceedings involving Nestel and, from Northampton, Frances Crowe, 93, Nancy First, 82, and Paki Wieland, 68; from West Springfield, Ellen Graves, 68; from Colrain, Betsy Corner, 63.

Arrested with Nestel on Tuesday were Crowe, Graves, and, from Northampton, Susan Lantz, 72, and Connie Harvard, 65; from Athol, Marcia Gagliardi, 64; from Florence, Anneke Corbett, 68; from Perkinsville, Vermont, Martha Hennessy, 60.

Before they were arrested, the women read the following statement:

“We are here today to shut down Vermont Yankee because we want to prevent another Fukushima. The Vermont Yankee reactor is a Mark I boiling water reactor just like the melted-down reactors at Fukushima. Those reactors have been pouring radioactivity into the environment since they were built, but since the meltdown, they have been literally out of control, poisoning land, air, and water from Japan to places all over the world.

“Nuclear power is always the carrier of radioactivity. Human beings, even the fine engineers and workers at Vermont Yankee, are not capable of controlling nuclear power.

“We must shut down Vermont Yankee and end the nuclear cycle. Nuclear power is not the answer. We must look to a safe and green future for the earth. We must look to a carbon free, nuclear free future.

“Shut it down now.”

Tuesday’s arrest marks the eighteenth time since 2005 that the Shut It Down Affinity Group has acted to close Vermont Yankee.

VTDigger

Sen President John Campbell, Lt. Gov. Phil Scott and Secretary of the Senate John Bloomer in discussion. VTD/Josh Larkin

With 38 bills on Monday’s calendar, it was hard to know where the Senate was going to land. Would it be one of the red hot issues that the Green Room has been avoiding for weeks, say the campaign finance bill? Or legislation that would allow child-care employers and workers unionize?

In a familiar pattern, the Senate hedged its bets, ran through a handful of sure-to-pass legislation and then saved the most controversial item for last: the health care exchange bill.

The biggest limiting factor for floor debate was the late hour. Senators started their legislative day at 3 p.m. and by 7 p.m. even the youngest members among the middle-aged denizens were starting to look a little bleary-eyed after the first reading of the health care exchange bill. On second reading, senators engaged in a passionate debate over student athlete concussions caused by contact sports.

Democrats Sen. Claire Ayer and Sen. Ann Cummings carefully picked their way through the complicated parameters of H.559, the legislation that uses the federal Affordable Care Act as a foundation for Gov. Peter Shumlin’s signature single payer plan.

The purpose of H.559 is to fulfill the requirements of the federal law, while finding a way to funnel the federal money that comes with implementation into a state-run health care program for uninsured and underinsured Vermonters.

The federal government requires states to set up “exchanges,” or online marketplaces that enable consumers to sort through the mazelike variety of insurance options based on the cost and scope of coverage. The exchanges are often compared to travel websites like Expedia or Orbitz.

The federal law includes an individual mandate — a requirement that all Americans buy insurance. It also requires insurance companies to provide coverage for patients who have “pre-existing” conditions, or known medical problems.

In Vermont, the “Expedia” system would evaluate three different insurance plan types, based on total actuarial value, that is the total cost to consumers of premiums, co-insurance, copays and deductibles.

The Shumlin administration has taken the exchanges a step further. It wants to require companies with 50 or fewer full-time employees (those working 30 hours or more) to obtain insurance on the exchange by January 2014. State officials also want to eliminate commissions for insurance brokers who earn about $18 million a year for actuarial services for businesses.

Steve Kimbell, commissioner of the Department of Financial Regulation, has said small companies could encourage workers to obtain insurance on their own — making them eligible for a federal subsidy for insurance coverage. Federal tax credits are available for a family of four with an income of up to $92,400. Businesses with more than 50 employees that don’t participate in the exchange would incur a $2,000 fine per year per employee.

The support and opposition to the state’s health care exchange plan breaks down along party lines. Most Democrats back the governor’s plan; Republicans oppose it.

Proponents say the exchanges will be the foundation for the governor’s single-payer plan, also known as Green Mountain Care, and will be designed to lower the rising cost of health care, which now accounts for 20 percent of the gross state product, and nearly 20 percent of the gross national product.

Opponents say the Shumlin administration is exceeding the federal requirements and creating an uncertain environment for business.

Peg Flory. VTD/Josh Larkin

Sen. Peg Flory, R-Rutland, used the Expedia example to illustrate her point — that the Shumlin administration has put limits on consumer choice by requiring Vermonters to buy health insurance through the exchange.

“I appreciated the comparison to Expedia, but if I want to buy a flight right now, I can go to CheapFlights.com or a travel agent, but my understanding is under this I’m stuck with just Expedia if I have 50 employees or less is that correct?” Flory asked.

“That’s correct,” Cummings said.

“And when I go to Expedia, I have … tons of tons of airlines to choose from,” Flory said. When I go to this insurance exchange how many insurers do I have to choose from?”

Cummings countered that Vermonters would have access to the same companies they have now, in addition to two federal insurance plans.

Flory asked if the exchange “is so wonderful” why is the state requiring businesses to participate in it, instead of allowing them to buy insurance “off the exchange.”

If companies bought insurance “off the exchange,” Cummings said, they would deny their employees the opportunity to receive federal tax credits. “That is money that would come into this state and help fund the whole health care system,” Cummings said, referring to the Shumlin administration’s plan to capture federal dollars for the single-payer system, which officials hope to have in place by 2017.

Sen. Ayer said the only reason to allow companies to circumvent the exchange is to support the existing $18 million commission system for insurance brokers.

Sen. Randy Brock, R-Franklin, said he didn’t see how the new system, which relies on “navigators,” was going to save more money.

Critics also questioned the viability of the health care exchange proposal in the face of a potential decision from the U.S. Supreme Court that could strike down the “individual mandate,” or the requirement that all Americans buy health insurance. The court heard arguments about the constitutionality of the mandate in March, and many observers say the critical nature of the justices’ questions doesn’t bode well for the federal provision. A decision is expected this summer.

Cummings compared this aspect of the state’s journey toward health care reform with driving down the road in a pea soup fog, hoping not to hit a bull moose. But not doing anything, in her view, isn’t an option.

“If the plan is overturned we’re back to square one on this,” Cummings said. “But we need to remember that two years ago we were talking about how the present system is not sustainable, that the employers are worried about the cost. We’ve been in a race to the bottom trying to keep cost affordable.”

Brock, the Republican candidate for governor, strongly urged the Senate to defeat the bill.

“The volume of unknowns and uncertainties … raises questions about where we’re going with this bill, and what we’re getting when we get there,” Brock said.

After the second reading of the bill was passed on a voice vote, Brock proposed that an amendment that would have required the Shumlin administration to disclose the cost of the Green Mountain Care system and to reveal the financing mechanism for the single-payer plan before the November election. The measure was defeated.

H.559 is up for third reading on Tuesday. Expect vigorous debate on amendments, including one from Sens. Vince Illuzzi and Hinda Miller that would put off the exchange implementation date to January 2015.

Senators expended almost as much energy on an unanticipated clause in the health care reform bill that would require coaches to pull student athletes out of a football game or other concussive sport if they had a “reasonable belief” that the student had sustained a head injury.

Sen. Dick Sears, D-Bennington, chair of Senate Judiciary, was miffed that the measure wasn’t brought to his attention and he insisted that the standard be changed to “actual knowledge.”

Sen. Dick Sears, chair of the Senate Committee on Judiciary. VTD/Alan Panebaker

This proposal led to an outburst from Sen. Kevin Mullin, who in a passionate exchange with Sears, insisted that the provision, based on National Football League language, was necessary to protect students.

“No child should ever have to go back into a game and sustain another injury,” Mullin fumed.

Sears countered that the standard of reasonable belief would have a chilling effect on high school contact sports and would lead to frivolous litigation.

A discussion about litigation phobia, common sense principles and whether schools should replace baseball with wiffleball ensued. Sears withdrew the amendment.

Senate adopts House Vermont Yankee thermal fee

The Senate also passed the environmental fee bill on Monday. It includes a $210,000 annual surcharge on the release of heated water from Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant in Vernon, which is located on the banks of the Connecticut River. The fee is double the charge previously assessed on the plant, which is owned by Entergy Corp.

The bill includes a 50 percent increase in air pollution monitoring fees; a 2 cent per cubic yard charge for extraction of stone, gravel and sand, and an additional 1 cent per cubic yard assessment for removal of more than 1 million cubic yards of material.

Fees for petroleum tanks at gas stations were increased by 50 percent to 250 percent, in order to cover costs associated with oil contamination cleanup. The assessments will range from $75 to $250 a year for tanks.

The Department of Environmental Conservation sought to increase state fees because funding from the Environmental Protection Agency will be significantly reduced over the next three years.

Senate OKs bill raising the school dropout age to 18

In an effort to help students who might otherwise drop out of school at age 16, lawmakers approved a measure that will not only require children to stay in school until age 18, but also creates incentives for dual enrollment programs at local state colleges.

The drop-out age would be gradually implemented over six-month intervals through 2015.

Under the plan, students and parents must receive counseling about alternative education programs. The idea is for teenagers to develop personal learning plans for work and additional training. School officials and guardians would have to sign the withdrawal form.

“Leaving school used to be an act,” said Sen. Ginny Lyons, D-Chittenden. “By putting this in place, we make it a process where kids are asked to evaluate who they are with respect to their career and educational goals.”

The money for the dual enrollment program would come from the $30 million Higher Education Trust Fund.

Senators scrap proposal to curb metal thieves

An attempt to help law enforcement track metal thieves was scrapped on Monday. Lawmakers had hoped to improve record-keeping practices for salvage yards and pawnbrokers, but the bill failed to garner the support of several senators who were concerned about the impact of the proposal on the sale of jewelry. The bill was ordered to lie.

Other business

Secondary mortgage lenders, including Fannie Mae, are requiring homeowners who live on private roads to obtain formal agreements verifying that they share the cost of maintaining the thoroughfares. The Senate gave preliminary approval to a House bill, H.272, that memorializes in statute a Vermont Supreme Court precedent that requires homeowners to share responsibility for private roadways. Cummings said the new law will make it easier for homeowners to obtain financing.

The Senate Appropriations Committee will hold an informational caucus on the budget at noon Tuesday in Room 11 at the Statehouse.

Editor’s note: This story was updated between 4 a.m. and 6:40 a.m. April 24.

Clarification: We reported that businesses that don’t participate in the exchange would incur a $2,000 fine per year per employee, and that Kimbell has argued the penalty is considerably less expensive than the cost of health insurance premiums. He says businesses with fewer than 50 or fewer employees are exempt from the federal penalties.

VTDigger