Just when you thought the mushrooming outrage among certain lawmakers had reached its logical maximum, the issue — whether ratepayers will receive windfall money in the CVPS/Green Mountain Power merger — gets bigger.
Senate President Pro Tempore John Campbell said on Wednesday he’s been persuaded that the Legislature needs to direct the Department of Public Service to renegotiate its agreement with Green Mountain Power that allows the utility to invest $21 million in efficiencies instead of paying back ratepayers for bailing out CVPS in the early 2000s.
The catch? Green Mountain Power could then turn around and raise rates to pay for the investment. Campbell says that means ratepayers won’t get their money back at all.
“There’s more to this than meets the eye,” Campbell said in the hallways of the Senate on Wednesday.
Campbell said a caucus of senators on Tuesday night agreed to offer an amendment that would ask the Department of Public Service to reopen a memorandum of understanding that allows Green Mountain Power to raise electric rates to pay for weatherization and efficiency programs instead of ensuring that a $21 million windfall is actually returned to ratepayers.
Sen. Tim Ashe, D/P-Burlington, described it as “a shell game, which one way or another leaves ratepayers out $21 million.”
It looks like Campbell will have the votes to pull it off. Most Democrats are on board, and Sens. Kevin Mullin and Joe Benning, both Republicans, voiced their opposition to the memo on Tuesday in a press conference with Sen. Randy Brock, who is running on the GOP ticket for governor.
The draft provision would send about $120 back to every CVPS ratepayer who was part of the bailout.
Sens. Peter Galbraith is one of the proponents of the bill. “We want to put the $21 million in the hands of the people who are going to spend it,” Galbraith said. “Our amendment will prohibit the recovery of funds from the rates.”
In testimony to a Senate committee, Elizabeth Miller, the commissioner of the Department of Public Service, gave a dense and “obfuscatory” explanation, Galbraith said, of how the windfall mechanism for ratepayers would work. As a result, it appeared that the question was who would get the money — ratepayers (championed by AARP) or community action councils for weatherization programs — when in fact, Galbraith says, the real issue was whether anyone but Gaz Metro would receive the $21 million in funds owed to ratepayers for the bailout because the utility, under the MOU, can raise rates to cover the cost of the investments.
The issue of whether or not the amendment is germane won’t likely come up as it did with House Speaker Shap Smith, he said, since Campbell supports the measure.
Meanwhile, Gov. Peter Shumlin told reporters at his weekly press conference on Wednesday that he didn’t know about a clause in the memo that allows the utility to raise rates to cover the cost of investments in efficiencies and weatherization in rates, rather than paying for the improvements with the $21 million it owes ratepayers.
Galbraith said the resistance to the governor’s wishes is a “sign that John Campbell is coming into his own and speaking for the Senate, which was what he was elected to do.”
“Once the governor sees the clarity of the Senate explanation, he’ll undoubtedly come around,” Galbraith said.
In 2007, Green Mountain Power returned $8 million to ratepayers for its portion of the bailout payback through nearly identical efficiency programs.
Police take new tack in press for access to prescription drug database info
Sen. Dick Sears, D-Bennington and chair of Senate Judiciary, says it’s unnecessary to require police to seek a warrant before they review private prescription drug records.
At issue is drug diversion from several pharmacies to street sales.
Under current law, police don’t need a warrant to ask for prescription drug records from local pharmacies. The House overwhelmingly supported a provision that required police to obtain warrants before they could look at information from the state’s searchable prescription drug database.
Sears favors a proposal from the Shumlin administration to allow law enforcement officials to review printouts from the state’s prescription drug database. The state of Florida uses a similar system.
“Some argue that’s unfettered access,” Sears said. “It’s not.”
Sears says Vermont is in the middle of a prescription drug epidemic. “We’re still at a point where we can control this thing,” he said. “If we don’t act, it’s going to take over.”
The plan now under consideration would include a requirement that police officers are engaged in a bonafide, ongoing investigation. Only trained investigators would be allowed access to the information, which would be provided as a paper copy of database records.
Allen Gilbert, executive director of the Vermont ACLU, said his organization is strongly opposed to that change.
“We believe any police access to database information should be allowed only with a warrant,” Gilbert said. “This is about much more than prescription drugs, this is about what kind of access police will have to electronic databases that have information about our private lives.”
Without a warrant, officers wouldn’t need probable cause to review the records of any member of the public.
The employees who manage the prescription drug database system would be required to give law enforcement officials access to information. “When a cop requests it, he or she gets it,” Gilbert said. “There is no discretion on the part of the person running the prescription drug monitoring system on behalf of the health department.”
The printouts from the databases would include a person’s name, prescription information, the prescriber and the pharmacy, he said. Ironically, he said, this kind of private information is not allowed to be made public under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
About 4 percent of all opoid prescription drugs used in Utah were purchased off the street, according to a Centers for Disease Control Study. Most of the drugs, 71 percent, were obtained for treatment of short-term pain.
Decrim back — same language, different vehicle
It looks like after relegating a pot decriminalization amendment first to a study committee, and then the wall of Senate Judiciary, the legislation will get a second chance at passage this session. H.745 will be taken up in conjunction with the prescription drug monitoring bill, according to Sears.
The legislation would:
- Decriminalize quantities under one ounce;
- Impose a civil penalty of $100 or less for adults over 21;
- Send minors to teen drug awareness and safety programs.
Under the provision, Vermonters who are found with one ounce or less would not see a blot on their records. In addition they would not be denied financial aid, a driver’s license or participation in a foster or adoptive parent program.
The language, sponsored by Sen. Jeanette White, is identical to an amendment proposed by Sens. Joe Benning and Philip Baruth last month.
You say BISHCA, they say DFR
The unwieldy acronym, BISHCA, which stood for the Department of Banking, Insurance, Securities and Health Care Administration, is no more. The department is still there, mind you, but the name has changed to Department of Financial Regulation, thank you very much.
So, what does it mean? The Department of Financial Regulation will continue to collect and manage hospital discharge data, health insurance claims data and make rate recommendations, but all that other health care stuff — the hospital budget reviews, certificate of need reviews for hospital expansions, and some parts of the health insurance review process — have been moved to the purview of the Green Mountain Care Board.
The rest of BISHCA’s responsibilities, namely insurance and banking regulation, stay with the department.
The Legislature passed the “housekeeping” bill this session and Shumlin signed it into law this week.
Steve Kimbell, commissioner of the department, said the health care administration became part of the department’s responsibilities in 1995 when Gov. Howard Dean created the health care authority, which was part of the then health care reform effort.
The Green Mountain Care Board will operate in a quasi-judicial capacity. The board has its own staff (13 altogether, 10 of which came from BISHCA), five board members and a separate office space in City Center, where the Department of Financial Regulation is also located.
The Department of Vermont Health Access will continue to handle all Medicaid claims data and will implement Vermont’s health care insurance exchange under the Affordable Care Act.
Editor’s note: Erin Hale and Alan Panebaker contributed to this report.
