“The blasting on Lowell Mountain is happening,” Snelling said. “The blades above the houses in Sheffield are spinning. We have the ability to investigate the impacts of this industrial development on our ridges and take the time to determine if we should let this continue throughout the state.”

Energize Vermont called for a moratorium on the further development of wind farms in Vermont at a press conference on Feb. 2.

Members of the organization argued that expanding industrial scale wind farms in Vermont will negatively affect mountain and forest habitats, water quality, and the health of communities near wind farms. Snelling talked about problems with Green Mountain Power’s Lowell Mountain wind project. Last fall road construction for the 21 turbine wind farm was found in violation of the Clean Water Act and also prompted citizens to camp on Lowell Mountain in protest.

VPIRG executive director Paul Burns was skeptical of some of the arguments made by Snelling about wind power. VPIRG, a nonprofit consumer and environmental advocacy organization, also campaigns for renewable energy and it supports the construction of large-scale wind farms.

“Certainly the legislature isn’t going to enact a moratorium on wind in the state,” Burns said. “Vermont probably has the toughest regulations in the country with respect to wind development – it’s already very hard to build wind [installations] here.”

Burns’ prediction mirrored comments made by Sen. Virginia Lyons, D-Chittenden, who indicated that it is unlikely Vermont will drop wind farms from its renewable energy portfolio.

“The primary thing we can do in our state is to provide an efficient use of whatever kind of energy we have,” Lyons said. “And that energy should be renewable. Wind is in the mix, it’s not going away. But certainly we need to inform our regulatory process, and inform the discussion about the very issues that you bring to us.”

As part of its call for a moratorium, Energize Vermont proposes offsetting the expansion of wind farms with smaller-scale community based renewable energy projects, like solar panel installations.

Snelling said Vermont could purchase “renewable” energy from Hydro-Quebec and ISO-New England in the interim, as the state searches for solutions to nuclear power or fossil fuels. Hydropower is considered a form of “renewable energy” in Vermont, though this label is contested in other states including Connecticut.

Burns questioned the idea that wind power could be swapped for solar power. In a handout distributed by VPIRG at the event, the organization noted that one wind turbine at the Lowell wind farm produces as much power as 1,428 residential 5kW solar instillations or 62 community 100kW turbines.

“We think we should do small solar projects for sure, but it’s not an alternative,” Burns said. “I’m in lock step with these guys in the concept that we need to maximize small, but that’s not going to be the complete answer to our energy needs. They’re either being disingenuous or either misrepresenting the truth if they’re saying that’s a real alternative.”

Snelling was unfazed by VPIRG’s criticism, arguing that in VPIRG’s bid to shut down the Vermont Yankee, the organization would support any solution.

“Our stance is we want to build renewable energy projects in the right places and right ways,” Snelling said. “So our approach is more nuanced but it’s about caring and protecting the things that we all love – that’s our high quality water, unfragmented habitats, and our united and healthy communities.”

VTDigger

Contact
Cassandra Gekas
VPIRG Health Care Advocate
Phone: (802) 223-5221
Email: vpirg@vpirg.org

Governor Shumlin announced yesterday that he will be joining us for our interactive webinar, Health Care 2012: What’s Next & Why It Matters, on February 7th at 7 pm. The event is filling up quickly, so register now to reserve your spot.

Click here to join us next Tuesday at 7 pm to find out where we’re headed and why it matters!

The debates of today will determine our health care future. We have until May to design a Health Benefit Exchange that makes coverage more affordable, protects patients and holds insurance companies accountable for how they spend taxpayer dollars – all of which will bring us closer to Green Mountain Care.

Unfortunately, our vision for high quality, affordable health care for every Vermonter, is under attack. Opponents of reform are stuck in the past, clinging to the idea that bigger profits and less oversight will result in better health care. The truth is, we’ve tried this already and it hasn’t worked – in fact, things have only gotten worse for thousands of Vermonters. The cost of doing nothing is simply too high.

Vermonters need is coverage that is robust, affordable, and reliable. This will help keep families healthy, grow our businesses, and stabilize state & local budgets.

But it’s going to take hard work to counter the voices of those profiting from the status quo and those who are determined to use fear and misinformation to stop us in our tracks – starting with Vermont’s health benefit exchange.

Don’t let insurance brokers and lobbyists speak for you. Click here to reserve your spot in our webinar today!

Staying informed and active are the two most important things you can do. And this interactive webinar is the first step. Invite your family, friends, co-workers or neighbors over to watch the webinar with you.

The path to Green Mountain Care is just that – a path. This path starts with lots of bumps and uphill climbs. As we face our first big test, thank you for being part of the solution.

VTDigger

Faithful members of the Vietnam Veterans Motorcycle Club may be a little surprised to find themselves on a list of “security threat groups” offered by the Department of Corrections to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday.

Whether the aging vets at the local watering hole constitute a gang comes down to a definition from the Department of Justice.

According to information offered to the Senate Judiciary Committee, a gang designation is appropriate for a group three or more people with a common identifying sign, symbol or name who individually or collectively engage in criminal activity which creates an atmosphere of fear and intimidation.

Sen. Alice Nitka wasn’t so sure that the retirees of the motorcycle club in Windsor are a menace to society.

Why shouldn’t the club be lumped in with the home-grown Chittenden County White Boys or “Anybody Can Get It” (commonly-known as ACG-137 according to the department), or maybe even the Bloods and the Crips?

If all it takes for a “gang” to make the list is for a few members of a group to commit a crime, Sen. Jeanette White asked, will the Boys and Girls Club be next?

Vermont Medical Society to Green Mountain Care Board: Not so fast

The authority for the Green Mountain Care Board to create emergency rules has the Vermont Medical Society asking them to slow down.

A provision in House Bill 559 allows the board to fast-track rules regarding insurance rate review and hospital budget review.

“In general, the medical society opposes emergency rules,” said Paul Harrington, executive Vice President of the Vermont Medical Society. “However, I think the administration has tried to address some of those concerns by allowing for additional comment and review.”

Harrington said the group is stinging from an experience in December, when the Department of Vermont Health Access proposed reducing Medicaid reimbursements for radiologists with a 10-day notice period during the holidays.

Georgia Maheras, executive director of the Green Mountain Care Board, said the emergency rule authority is necessary to allow the board to get rules in place and work with hospitals to set up a structure for their budgets. Assuming H.559 passes in the spring, under traditional rulemaking, it could take until the end of the year before a rule emerged.

“The intent is not to shorten or limit public input but really provide guidance for the interim period,” Maheras said.

The usual notice and comment process for regulations would be 30 days, Maheras said, and the proposed bill limits that to 10 days. It could be as short as five days, but the board was not comfortable with that, Maheras said. She said the board will also go through the traditional rulemaking process simultaneously.

Fix in midwifery bill could ensure coverage

Negotiations with insurance companies, lawmakers and midwives have led to what could be an agreement ensuring coverage for home births.

A law passed last year requires private insurance companies to cover home births, but some families were finding midwife services were not covered based in large part on the fact that many midwives do not carry malpractice insurance.

Proposed language by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont would prohibit an insurance company from requiring that a midwife meet the insurance plan’s network requirements, including malpractice insurance. It does attach other strings, however, like cost-sharing and benefit plan limitations.

“We’re working towards a compromise that honors the intent of the law and works with Blue Cross Blue Shield’s standards and policies, which is the best solution for Vermont families,” said Cassandra Gekas, a lobbyist for the Vermont Public Interest Research Group.

Leigh Tofferi, director of government relations for Blue Cross Blue Shield, said the next step is to figure out how the Legislature wants to proceed and notify others who have a stake in the matter and were not part of the discussion.

Rep. Chris Pearson, P-Burlington, who presented the bill to the Senate after it passed the House last year, said he is still skeptical.

The piece of the original legislation that caused the original problem, Pearson said, was included at the request of the insurance companies.

“They’ve really broken trust with spirit of what we’re trying to do, and they were a collaborative part of that,” Pearson said. “We have no choice but to be really skeptical and really dig in to make sure they follow the law and follow the intent of law.”

VTDigger

Media Contacts:
VYDA: Debra Stoleroff
debra@vtlink.net
(802) 476-3154

VPIRG: Liz Edsell (Field Director)
liz @ vpirg.org
(802) 223-5221 ext. 15

WHO: Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Alliance (VYDA)
SAGE Alliance
VPIRG
Concerned Citizens

WHAT: Rally to support the State of Vermont in their decision to retire Vermont Yankee on Schedule.

WHEN: Monday, January 23rd at 4 pm

WHERE: In front of the State House on State Street

WHY: Vermonters disappointed in U.S. District Court Judge Garvan Murtha’s ruling in favor of Entergy Louisiana will rally in solidarity with the state’s decision to retire Vermont Yankee on schedule. They will launch a statewide petition aimed at demonstrating Vermonters’ support for closing the aging nuclear plant as planned.

Members of the Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Alliance, SAGE Alliance and VPIRG will begin weekly rallies in front of the Vermont State House on State Street starting Monday, Jan. 23, 2012. Vermonters with signs and banners will deliver a message of thanks to the Governor and legislators for their leadership in moving Vermont toward a clean energy future and for their past decision to close Vermont Yankee on schedule. “Judge Murtha’s decision is a setback but not a defeat”, said Debra Stoleroff of the Vermont Yankee DecommissioningAlliance. “When the state voted not to offer Vermont Yankee a Certificate of Public Good, they made sound decisions based on economics, reliability and environmental issues. We feel strongly about supporting democratic process. ”

VTDigger

Contact
Charity Carbine-March, VPIRG, 223-5221 x24

The Senate is scheduled to vote Tuesday on a bill (S.92) that requires manufacturers and distributors of cleaning products to only sell environmentally preferable cleaning products to schools. This bill would put schools on par with Vermont’s state buildings which have already transitioned to “green” cleaning products.

Conventional cleaning supplies can contain toxic chemicals that have been linked to asthma, cancer, and other negative health effects. These chemicals can pollute indoor air and impact the health of students and staff. “Green” cleaning products are safer and are just as effective and affordable as conventional supplies.

Approval of the bill by the Senate would send the legislation to the Governor’s desk for his signature.

When: Tuesday, January 10th, at 9am

Where: State House

Montpelier, VT

VTDigger

Vermont Fuel Dealers Association Executive Director Matt Cota. VTD/Josh Larkin

The Vermont Public Interest Research Group and the Vermont Fuel Dealers Association became strange bedfellows this fall in their similar arguments against a proposal in the state’s Draft Comprehensive Energy Plan to consider a small- or mid-sized natural gas electric generation plant in the state.

The draft plan proposes considering permitting an electric generation plant as a means to meet energy demand during periods of peak demand and low output from intermittent renewable energy.

While both seemingly disparate groups might agree that a new facility that generates electricity by burning natural gas is a bad idea, their reasons why couldn’t be more different.

For the Vermont Fuel Dealers Association, which represents companies that supply heating fuels, natural gas is a competing fuel.

Matt Cota, executive director of the association, said “if you’re trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the answer is not natural gas.”

Cota points to a study from Cornell University that highlights the methane (a potent greenhouse gas) emissions associated with natural gas production through hydraulic fracturing.

VPIRG’s comments on the Draft Comprehensive Energy Plan cite the same environmental concerns about methane as the fuel dealers. VPIRG proposes that new electricity generation should come from renewable sources, not natural gas.

Ben Walsh, VPIRG’s clean energy advocate, said “sometimes a bad idea is just a bad idea.”

Walsh said “if we want to leave a positive clean energy legacy and keep Vermonters’ money working in our state, the last thing we should be doing is building a plant that is going to get 20 or 25 percent of our state’s electricity from natural gas.”

While the two organizations may agree that a natural gas generation plant is not the answer, they’re probably not going to get together and sing Kumbaya any time soon. While the fuel dealers would rather see the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Vernon stay open as a cheap source of electricity, VPIRG has advocated actively for its closure. And while VPIRG’s comments focus heavily on new renewable energy sources, the fuel dealers focus is on not supporting natural gas, although they do promote transitioning to a biodiesel blended, ultra-low sulfur distillate form of heating oil.

Currently, Vermont has no electric facilities that burn natural gas as a primary fuel. The wood-fired McNeil generator in Burlington, however, uses natural gas as a secondary fuel source.

The draft energy plan adopts an ambitious goal of 90 percent renewable energy from all sources by 2050. Yet it recognizes that fossil fuel power plants are a strategic component of the region’s electric supply mix because of their ability to produce a certain quantity of electricity at a specifically designated time. Despite concerns over price volatility and the environmental costs associated with the extraction technique called hydraulic fracturing, the plan proposes natural gas as cheaper than renewable sources and cleaner than coal or other fossil fuels when properly extracted and distributed.

Meanwhile, representatives for Vermont Gas Systems, the state’s only natural gas utility, withheld outright support for a generation facility in Vermont.

Steve Wark, director of communications for Vermont Gas, said in a written comment, “our project and current operations are independent of any plans or interest in generation and we leave the question of the need for natural gas generation to the experts in the electric sector and the Department of Public Service.”

Vermont Gas has received support in the draft energy plan for expansion of natural gas pipelines in the state. In September, the Vermont Public Service Board approved an expansion fund for the company. The fund will allow the company to deposit about $4.4 million annually that would otherwise go to reduce rates to into the fund. The fund will help the company expand its natural-gas system into the Vergennes and Middlebury market areas by smoothing the rate trajectory that would otherwise be expected if the expansion project were constructed.

VTDigger

David Cobb

“I’m Ben,” began Ben & Jerry’s founder Ben Cohen. “I’m a person.”

“I’m Jerry,” continued his partner, Jerry Greenfield. “I’m a person.”

“Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream, Inc…” proceeded Cohen,

“…is not a person,” finished Greenfield, to laughter and applause.

A crowd packed into Christ Episcopal Church in Montpelier Tuesday night to hear Cohen, Greenfield, and others condemn the Citizens United U.S. Supreme Court decision, which gave corporations the same constitutional rights as people and allowed businesses to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaign advertising.

The panelists led a discussion about efforts to block the effects of that legal precedent on future elections, including the introduction of a proposed constitutional amendment that would deny corporations personhood and put limits on campaign advertising.

The audience responded enthusiastically to a stemwinder delivered by Move to Amend’s David Cobb, a talk he billed as a 10-minute overview of Constitutional law “and why the idea of a corporation being able to claim Constitutional rights is actually a perversion of the democratic promise of a republic in the United States of America.”

Cobb pointed out that states issue corporate charters. For the first 75 years of the nation’s history, he said, charters were used to hold corporations accountable.

“Corporate charters were only allowed for five, seven, ten years,” Cobb said. “They could only do certain things to get the privilege of limited liability.

“At the end of that time period, the corporate charter automatically dissolved. Not only that, all you could ever do was the very specific thing you had identified. You had to prove a public need that was not being met either by existing private businesses or public action… And get this–any time a corporation was ever found to act outside the public interest, do you know what happened to the corporate charter?” Here he drew his hand across the throat and concluded, “Dissolved! The corporate death penalty. It was used routinely the first 75 years of our country.”

Cobb argued that Americans don’t seem to understand that people control corporations and give them privileges — not rights. He said that a resolution introduced in the state senate could make Vermont the first state to urge Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment to limit corporate campaign spending and establish that corporations are not entitled to Constitutional rights.

A number of opponents of Green Mountain Power’s wind project in Lowell used the forum to criticize GMP during the discussion period, though forum organizers repeatedly steered the conversation back to the evening’s topics of corporate personhood and campaign finance reform.

Some audience members referred to corporations as sociopathic institutions (and one ridgetop wind opponent used the term specifically towards Green Mountain Power). The mental illness metaphor was made popular by the 2003 documentary The Corporation, which promoted the idea that if a corporation actually was a person, it would be diagnosed as a sociopath because corporations are legally bound to put profits to shareholders above human values like community and compassion.

Cobb said corporations are defined by “We the People” who live under the U.S. Constitution. He acknowledged that under legal doctrine the idea that a corporation’s only role is to provide a return to shareholders has become the status quo, and then he asked, “Do you know where that came from? A court created it.”

“What to me is most exciting about this moment is that we the people are beginning to have first-principle conversations about the economic engines that are the most dominant institutions of our time, that we have been taught and trained to obey… I believe we are in a pre-revolutionary time in the United States. I believe we are engaged in a conversation about, what kind of society do we want? How can we do the things we want to do?”

Audience members stuck around for more than half an hour after the forum, energized by the discussions and attracted by the four flavors of free Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, scooped in part by Ben and Jerry, in person.

The forum was organized by the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) and Clean Yield Asset Management.

VTDigger

Contact: Leah Marsters, VPIRG, 223-8421 x4787

Bottle drive raises over $8,000 for farm relief 130,000 of bottles and cans collected for the cause

On Wednesday, the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) celebrated the end of a two-month-long bottle drive to raise funds for farms damaged by Tropical Storm Irene. In total, the statewide Redeem to Rebuild drive raised over $8,000 through the collection of redeemed containers as well as through non-profit, business, and individual donations.

“Over 130,000 bottles and cans were redeemed to raise these funds,” said Leah Marsters, an organizer at VPIRG. “It’s so heartening to see Vermonters pulling together to help one another in any small way they can, even if it’s one nickel at a time, it makes a significant impact.”

Over fifty redemption centers across the state participated in the drive along with high schools, college groups, and interested community members from towns all over Vermont. Groups like the student council at Lamoille Union High School set up collection bins throughout the school, made daily announcements, and encouraged students to participate in the drive by distributing raffle tickets for every ten cans donated. Similarly, Depot Beverage, a redemption center located in Waterbury, fundraised close to $1,000 by advertising the drive to their regular customers.

“So much of our community was devastated by Tropical Storm Irene,” said Mike Marshall of Depot Beverage. “Participating in Redeem to Rebuild just made sense. The drive has provided a simple way for us to help others get back on their feet after the flood.”

Geo Honigford, owner of Hurricane Flats Organic Farm in South Royalton that was flooded during Irene, said, “I’ve been very impressed by the generosity of people, and with the grant from the Vermont Farm Disaster Relief Fund, we will bounce back from being “Hurricane Flat-tened” to Hurricane Flats next spring.”

In addition to the redemption of bottles and cans, Redeem to Rebuild also benefited from non-profit, business, and individual contributions. Beyond organizing the drive, VPIRG donated an additional $500 to the cause. TOMRA, a company involved in the collection and recycling of redeemable beverage containers in Vermont, made a $1,000 donation.

VPIRG delivered the proceeds from Redeem to Rebuild to the Vermont Farm Disaster Relief Fund, a fund established by the Vermont Community Foundation in partnership with the Vermont Agency of Agriculture to provide support to farms that have suffered losses due to Tropical Storm Irene.

“The outpouring of support that we’ve received from Vermonters across the state has been amazing,” said Stuart Comstock-Gay, president and CEO of the Vermont Community Foundation. “There is such a spirit of community and generosity in Vermont, and the Redeem to Rebuild drive exemplifies that.”

VTDigger

VERMONTERS LEAD CHARGE FOR CORPORATE PERSONHOOD CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT?
Ben & Jerry join Noted Attorneys to Challenge Corporations-as-Persons at Montpelier Public Forum

Montpelier- Nov. 17 As corporate influence in politics grows, opposing forces are mounting as well. If Occupy Wall Street is one manifestation, another is an upcoming local event that will offer responses to Citizens United v. F.E.C, last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision that has opened the floodgates for corporate money in electoral politics.

Corporations are Persons? Get Real! How real people are reclaiming democracy after Citizens United will be held on Tuesday, November 29, at Christ Episcopal Church, 64 State St., Montpelier. This free and open-to-the public event seeks to kick-start a statewide conversation about avenues Vermont citizens and officials can pursue to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial and flawed ruling. It starts at 7:00 pm.

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court found that corporations are persons with the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, including a wide range of rights to contribute financially to political campaigns.

Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, the activist co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s Homemade, are bringing their business perspective to oppose the decision. Other panelists include Jennifer Taub, an associate professor of law at Vt. Law School, and David Cobb, an attorney and spokesperson for Move To Amend, a national organization dedicated to undoing corporate personhood through a constitutional amendment. Cheryl Hanna, a Vt. Law School professor, will moderate the forum. Hanna is familiar to Vermonters as a frequent media commentator on current legal issues.

Ben and Jerry are bringing their signature treat for free refreshments available to all who attend.

The forum is co-sponsored by Clean Yield Asset Management, a 25–year-old firm serving social investors with offices in Norwich and Greensboro, and the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG), the 25,000-member citizens’ advocacy organization based in Montpelier.

CONTACTS: Rick Hausman, Dir. of Research and Advocacy, Clean Yield Asset Management, Norwich, (802) 526-7178;
-or-
Paul Burns, Executive Director, VPIRG, Montpelier, (802) 223-8421.

VTDigger

Contact
Charity Carbine-March
VPIRG
223-8421 x4108

Dangerous or toxic toys can still be found on America’s store shelves, according to the Vermont Public Interest Research Group’s (VPIRG’s) 26th annual Trouble in Toyland report.

The report reveals the results of laboratory testing on toys for lead and phthalates, both of which have been proven to have serious adverse health impacts on the development of young children. The survey also found toys that pose either choking or noise hazards.

“Choking on small parts, small balls and balloons is still a leading cause of toy-related injury. Between 1990 and 2009 over 200 children have died,” said VPIRG’s environmental health advocate, Charity Carbine-March. “While most toys are safe, our researchers still found toys on the shelves that pose choking hazards and other toys that contain hazardous levels of toxic chemicals including lead,” she explained.

For 26 years, the VPIRG Trouble in Toyland report has offered safety guidelines for purchasing toys for small children and provided examples of toys currently on store shelves that pose potential safety hazards. The group also provides an interactive website with tips for safe toy shopping that consumers can access on their smart phones at www.toysafety.mobi.

Key findings from the report include:

Toys with high levels of toxic substances are still on store shelves. Two toys contain levels of phthalates – a chemical that poses development hazards for small children — at 40 and 70 times allowable limits. Several toys violate current allowable lead limits (300ppm). Lead has negative health effects on almost every organ and system in the human body.
Despite a ban on small parts in toys for children under three, we found toys available in stores that still pose choking hazards.
We also found toys that are potentially harmful to children’s ears and exceed the hearing standards recommended by the National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders.

In 2008, Congress placed strict limits on concentrations of lead and phthalates in toys and children’s articles in a law that also gave greater authority and funding to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Carbine-March noted that the CPSC has a new database of both potential hazards and recalled products at saferproducts.gov.

“Parents and toy givers need to remember that while the CPSC is doing a good job, it doesn’t test all toys on the shelves. Consumers should also remember that toys that are not on our list of examples could also pose hazards,” Carbine-March concluded. “Our new Toy Tips explains the most common toy hazards and can be found on our mobile app.”

To download a pdf version of Trouble in Toyland, go to www.vpirg.org.

VTDigger