Contact
Lauren Hierl
Environmental Health Advocate, VPIRG
Phone: (802) 223-5221 ext.25

Montpelier, VT – This week marks the 40th anniversary of Vermont’s Bottle Bill. On April 7, 1972, Vermont’s legislature passed an innovative bill to put a redeemable deposit on beer and soda bottles and cans. The program aimed to curb the state’s litter problem by giving people a financial incentive to recycle. Over the past forty years, this creative approach to discouraging litter has grown into Vermont’s most successful recycling program.

“Vermont has been a leader in environmental stewardship for many years, and the ‘bottle bill’ that passed 40 years ago is a good example of this,” said U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT). “This initiative spurred recycling efforts that reduced waste and litter while conserving natural resources. In addition, recycling saves energy and cuts greenhouse gas emissions. I think we can all agree that building on our progress by increasing our recycling would be good for our state and our environment.”

In forty years, the Bottle Bill has become a recycling program that positively affects Vermonters in many ways. In addition to improving our environment and providing local jobs, bottle redemption supports community members and local groups like Cub Scouts and sports teams who use bottle drives to raise funds. These positive impacts are reflected in the program’s popularity – in fact, Senator Bill Doyle’s 2012 Town Meeting Survey showed 78% of respondents support expanding the Bottle Bill.

“Over the past 40 years, the Bottle Bill has recycled so many bottles and cans they’d fill the Empire State Building more than 3 times over,” said Lauren Hierl, Environmental Health Advocate for VPIRG. “Imagine if forty years ago legislators hadn’t taken the bold step of enacting the redemption program, and all those bottles and cans had clogged our landfills and littered our roadsides. Today’s legislators should take another step forward by expanding the Bottle Bill to cover additional beverage containers, and rescue billions more bottles and cans from our landfills.”

State Senator Ginny Lyons is considering a bill that would do just that. “For 40 years, the Bottle Bill has worked for Vermont. As we contemplate mandatory recycling, it makes sense to keep and in fact expand our most successful recycling program, the Bottle Bill. Studies show that recycling rates are highest and costs are lowest when curbside recycling and bottle redemption programs work together,” said Sen. Lyons.

As the Senate considers legislation that would mandate recycling (H.485), many believe that it’s the perfect time to expand the Bottle Bill. Even as curbside and drop-off recycling programs have expanded in the state, Bottle Bill containers are still recycled at more than double the rate of containers not covered under the program.

“Monetary reward trumps all other incentives to recycle,” noted Arthur Carroll, owner of the Springfield Redemption Center. “The state’s recycling rate could be increased quickly if bottle redemption was expanded to cover additional beverage containers. Also, redemption produces cleaner more valuable recycling materials than any other collection method.”

Environmental advocates noted that the state could see immediate benefits from updating the Bottle Bill. A study released earlier this year by VPIRG shows that expanding the law to cover additional beverage containers would result in approximately 96.7 million more bottles and cans being recycled each year in Vermont, while also cutting energy use, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and creating local jobs.

The legislation under consideration right now in the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee, chaired by Sen. Lyons, would also allow the state rather than beverage industry, to keep unredeemed nickels. This would provide an estimated $3.27 million dollars in annual revenue to the state that could be used to help fund recycling programs, among other things.

“The Bottle Bill’s 40th anniversary is a great time not only to celebrate its long record of success but to update it to cover the whole range of beverages consumed today,” said Hierl. She noted that adding the expanded Bottle Bill language to the solid waste legislation (H. 485) would make this popular program an even greater success for Vermont for the next 40 years.

###

VTDigger

Contact
Paul Burns
VPIRG
Phone: 802-793-1985

What this bill boils down to is getting real clean energy projects built in Vermont. We’re grateful to the House of Representatives for moving this legislation forward. It demonstrates that a large majority of House members are serious about taking control of our energy future in a responsible way.

This bill isn’t everything we’d hoped for, but it’s a big step in the right direction and it will help to ensure a positive legacy of clean energy for our children and grandchildren.

VTDigger

Contact: Shawn Shouldice, 802-371-7923

Transparency & Accountability Vermont Can Do Much Better

Montpelier, March 15, 2012 – Campaign for Vermont urges Vermonters to read the USPIRG Report Card issued March 14. The report card gives Vermont State Government a D- in transparency and accountability.

The USPIRG report card calls for Vermont and other states to publish a “money trail” website of all state spending. Campaign for Vermont supports this common sense solution to improve state government’s lack of fiscal transparency. It also agrees with USPIRG that “top-flight transparency websites actually save money for taxpayers, while also restoring public confidence in government, and preventing misspending and pay-to-play contracts.”

“Right now is the time for elected officials to practice what they preach on the campaign trail,” Campaign for Vermont Founder Bruce Lisman said. “Establishing fiscal transparency cannot wait until the political campaign season. It must be a priority, starting now. On the first day of every month that little or no decisive action has been taken on this excellent idea, Campaign for Vermont will publicly decry this failure to act. And when decisive action is taken, the Campaign will be the first to applaud it.”

Lisman noted the irony of the USPIRG Report’s publication coming within days of news reports alleging financial conflict of interest by former VPIRG Staff James Moore. According to Seven Days newspaper, Moore, while speaking in his official VPIRG capacity, lobbied the Legislature successfully for subsidies that directly benefit his new, private-sector solar power development company, SunCommon. Even the pursuit of a good cause such as solar energy deserves a transparent process.

“As USPIRG says, taxpayers need to be able to follow the money,” Lisman said. “When taxpayers don’t have a seat at the table, pretty soon they’re on the menu.”

VTDigger

James Moore, the former energy advocate for VPIRG, co-founded SunCommon.

The left-leaning public policy and consumer affairs group, Vermont Public Interest Research Group has spun off a nonprofit solar installation pilot project into a business.

The company, SunCommon, a so-called “benefit corporation,” installs residential solar systems.

Duane Peterson, president of the VPIRG board of trustees, and James Moore, former VPIRG Clean Energy Program director, started the company last fall after a VPIRG energy pilot program proved successful.

“It was a pilot project within the nonprofit,” Peterson said. “The tail started wagging the non-profit dog, and in order to make it available to all Vermonters, we really needed to increase the scale.”

That meant obtaining start-up money from private investors to fund the equipment and hiring a staff of 32 employees, including SunCommon workers and the contracted installer. At the launch, the company showed off a fleet of “environmentally correct” hybrid cars and an electric Chevy Volt, complete with a colorful paint job that includes the company’s logo. Peterson declined to name the investors.

VPIRG was tight-lipped last fall when VTDigger.org first caught wind of the plans for the formation of the company.

At a press event on Thursday, Mary Powell, the CEO of Green Mountain Power, and Gov. Peter Shumlin jumped on board to support the company.

Moore said consumers typically have to make a large up front investment in order to install solar systems. SunCommon leases the equipment with no upfront cost to the consumer. The financing system is similar to one developed by the Vermont company All Earth Renewables.

SunCommon takes advantage of a federal income tax credit, a state solar rebate and five years of accelerated depreciation.

“Most Vermonters aren’t used to paying for the next 20 years of power,” Moore said. “That’s essentially what the solar industry used to make people do. This is an easy monthly payment, and people will be paying less than they would be paying their electric company.”

The theory? Consumers will invest in solar installations that produce enough energy to “zero out” residential electric bills.

While SunCommon will guide homeowners through the installation process, it doesn’t make or install the panels. A California company, SunPower, manufactures the panels and a local business, Peck Electric, will do the installations.

SunCommon hybrid vehicle

SunCommon is one of a half dozen companies that is listed as a benefit corporation in Vermont.

A Vermont law that went into effect July 1, 2011, allows companies to incorporate as benefit corporations — meaning they must consider factors such as the environment, community or other social issues in making business decisions.

Ken Merritt, managing director of the law firm Merritt & Merritt & Moulton, helped the company incorporate. He said the benefit corporation model requires the business to take into account social objectives when making decisions. Benefit corporations define these objectives in their corporate charter. While there is no state evaluation requirement, Merritt said, benefit corporations have to publish a report that assesses their social mission.

Like a traditional corporation, benefit corporations have shareholders who can bring lawsuits against the company’s board of directors if it fails to fulfill its duties. The model does not open the company up to third-party lawsuits by “stakeholders” who would benefit from the company’s social mission, Merritt said.

Benefit corporations, Merritt said, are not the same as B Corps which are certified by a nonprofit organization called B Lab. The organization ensures companies meet social, environmental and accountability standards. SunCommon has yet to go through the B Corps certification, Merritt said.

Guy Page, communications director of the Vermont Energy Partnership, said in an email that the start-up is an intriguing project, but it faces challenges. The Vermont Energy Partnership represents groups that support keeping Vermont Yankee open as a form of low-cost baseload energy.

“The high cost of renewable power, and solar power in particular, is a serious limiting factor in its attractiveness as a large component in Vermont’s energy portfolio,” Page said. “Countries far advanced in small-scale intermittent renewable power, such as Germany, are finding that the problems of high cost and need for reliable baseload power persist. Vermont policy makers need to be asking serious questions about the economic advisability of pursuing an energy future that relies too heavily on intermittent renewable power.”

Correction: Due to an editing error, this post originally and incorrectly stated that SunCommon was a for-profit arm of VPIRG. The company is a separate entity.

VTDigger

Contact:
Andrea Stander Falko Schilling
Executive Director, Rural Vermont Consumer Protection Advocate, VPIRG
andrea@ruralvermont.org falko@vpirg.org
802-223-7222 802-223-5221 x.26

David L. Rogers,
Policy Advisor, NOFA Vermont
dave@nofavt.org
802-434-4122 (NOFA office)
802-244-6446 (Home office)

The Vermont Right to Know GMOs coalition is launching a campaign to make Vermont the first state in the nation to require the labeling of genetically engineered food by passing the Vermont Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act (H.722). Vermont’s efforts have already garnered national attention and received broad support from organizations and individuals in the state. Organizational supporters and petition results will be revealed at the event.

With consumer, agricultural and business interests present, the speakers will demonstrate the breadth of support for H.722. “This is a consumer right to know issue,” said Falko Schilling VPIRG Consumer Protection Advocate, “Just as we require nutritional labels on food so that shoppers can make informed choices, consumers should have the same access to information about whether their food has been genetically engineered.”

WHO: Vermont Right to Know GMOs coalition members

- Rural Vermont

- Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont

- VPIRG

- Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility

Legislative Supporters of H.722

WHAT: A call for Vermont to be the first state in the nation to require the labeling of genetically engineered food by passing H.722 the VT Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act

WHEN: 11:00 AM, Thursday, February 23rd

WHERE: The Cedar Creek Room, the Vermont State House

# # #

VTDigger

VPIRG wants to expand the “bottle bill.”

The left-leaning consumer affairs group released a report on Wednesday about the positive environmental impact of expanding Vermont’s beverage deposit return program to include water bottles and containers for non-carbonated drinks.

VPIRG advocates also touted the potential financial advantages of the expanded bottle redemption program. The group says the state could bank on $1.27 million in additional revenue from unredeemed deposits.

The report lends support to three bills in the House and Senate – H.727, S.176 and S.195 – that call for expanding the state’s bottle/beverage recycling system and state collection of unredeemed deposits. Vermont first instituted a beverage container law in 1973. Most bottles carry a 5 cent deposit; liquor containers, which were added to the law in 1990, have a 15 cent deposit. According to VPIRG, this program has an 85 percent recycling rate and its expansion is supported by 86 percent of the state.

According to VPIRG’s new findings, prepared by CM Consulting, Vermont could collect $1.27 million a year in unredeemed revenue from recycling an additional 96.7 million bottles and cans. Expanded collection could create 100 full-time jobs, the report says.

Sen. Vincent Illuzzi, R-Essex-Orleans, a sponsor of S.176, told reporters the legislation is an attempt to bring the law up to date.

“The world has dramatically changed since Vermont’s first bottle bill was enacted into law,” Illuzzi said. “During that period, society has changed. And we are now using more and more plastics to consume beverages which 30 years ago were really unknown.”

Gov. Peter Shumlin is against the bill; he favors mandatory recycling.

“I believe in this country we will be fighting each other for garbage for energy and products,” said Shumlin. “Our goal should be 100 percent recycling. If we had mandatory recycling, we wouldn’t need a mandatory bottle bill in Vermont.”

Andrew Maclean, a lobbyist representing the Beverage Association of Vermont, was also critical of the loss of revenue to facilities like Chittenden Solid Waste District, which sells recycling waste once it is sorted. Casella Waste System operates the facility in a profit-sharing agreement.

“Our position is, one is, that this material is valuable, as you have economies in the Far East heating up, PET, which is the plastic bottles and aluminum are becoming more and more expensive,” Maclean said. “What this bill would do is divert that valuable material from the traditional material that Chittenden Solid Waste District collects so that the material they count on to earn a profit and subsidize some of the stuff that’s less valuable, like compost or construction debris or paper or glass, you’re taking that away from them. And this bill would exacerbate that problem.”

VPIRG Executive Director Paul Burns explained that the bottle deposit expansion could co-exist with a recycling program.

“The reason why you would retain a bottle bill – one of them for instance is it applies to primarily single-serve beverages, things that are not exclusively consumed in your home as your mayonnaise jar might be,” he said. “So that’s the kind of thing that you might easily want to put in your blue bin, but if you’re drinking a can of soda on the road, and so forth, you don’t have your blue bin right there. So it makes sense to have these kinds of redemption programs for all those kinds of beverage containers.”

Shumlin received a $2,000 campaign contribution from the Beverage Association of Vermont in 2010 and $500 from Casella Waste Systems, according to followthemoney.org.

VTDigger

Contact
Lauren Hierl
Environmental Health Advocate
Vermont Public Interest Research Group
Phone: (802) 223-5221 x25

VPIRG will release new analysis in a Wednesday press conference at the State House showing the tremendous environmental and economic benefits that will result from expanding Vermont’s successful Bottle Bill recycling program.  Legislation that would expand the bottle redemption program to cover plastic water bottles and other beverage containers, and allow the State to collect revenue from unredeemed bottles and cans, has tri-partisan support in the Senate.

Expanding the Bottle Bill and collecting the unclaimed nickels would give Vermont an additional $3 million in needed annual revenues.

The press event will feature the leading Senate sponsors of Bigger Better Bottle Bill legislation, including three committee chairs, and a small business redemption center owner.  “There are plenty of reasons why more than eight out of ten Vermonters support expanding the Bottle Bill,” said Lauren Hierl, environmental health advocate with VPIRG.  “This new analysis gives us hard evidence showing exactly how recycling will be improved, what the climate benefits will be, how many jobs will be created, and how the state’s revenues will be enhanced.”

WHAT:
News conference announcing drive to pass a Bigger Better Bottle Bill in the Senate.  VPIRG will release new analysis showing major environmental, economic and financial benefits.
WHO:
Sen. Ginny Lyons (D-Chittenden)
Sen. Vince Illuzzi (R-Essex-Orleans)
Sen. Anthony Pollina (P/D/W-Washington)
Sen. Jeanette White (D-Windham)
Mike Marshall, Owner, Depot Beverage, LLC, Waterbury
Paul Burns and Lauren Hierl, VPIRG

WHEN:

VTDigger

“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