Here is a bit of history many probably do not know.  In the 1970’s a property on Popple Dungeon Drive in Charlotte was being considered as a potential site for a nuclear power plant.  I do not know the history as to why this site was dropped in favor of Vernon, the current home of Vermont Yankee.  I do not know who the decision makers were or what the community response was some 35 years ago.  What I can do is picture how different this community would be, how different our relationship to Lake Champlain would be, if Charlotte had been chosen over Vernon.  Popple Dungeon Nuclear Power.

So what decisions can we make today that we can look back on, 30 odd years from now and say, I am so glad we did what we did in 2009.  Or maybe it could have been called Charlotte Nuclear Power.

My reason for running for the legislature last year was clear. I wanted to be a part of creating the vision and implementing a plan that would keep this state beautiful, clean, safe and abundant in meaningful, not superficial ways.  I wanted to be a part of building a vibrant economy that was in concert with our respect for our natural resources and thoughtful way of life.  It is my hope, that the Vermont Energy Act of 2009, passing out of the House with a 2:1 vote on Earth Day, will be part of that experience.  Here is what H-446 is designed to do:

•    Promote the development and deployment of cost-effective, environmentally sustainable electric power and thermal energy primarily with respect to renewable energy resources and the use of combined heat and power technologies.

•    Jump-start the development of renewable energy. 89% of Vermonters want more renewable energy as part of their electric mix according to the Department of Public Service.

•    Encourage community-scale renewable energy development like solar, methane, wind and hydroelectric generation, by giving developers certainty in the return they’ll receive on their projects so they will invest in small Vermont projects.

•    Creates a pilot program that will allow Vermont’s biggest businesses like IBM to invest in their own energy-saving measures

•    Stimulate the Creation of 15 – 20 jobs in engineering, manufacturing, distribution, and installation per megawatt of installation every year

•    Expedite the delivery of $21 million in stimulus funds for green energy projects through the Clean Energy Development Fund

•    Aligns our building codes with federal standards so we can receive stimulus funding for weatherization

•    Provides tax credits that may be carried forward for homeowners and businesses who invest in renewable energy

•    Requires the Public Service Board to implement a standard, cost-based, long-term contract on behalf of Vermont’s utilities for qualifying types of renewable energy.

•    Allows the use of land under the jurisdiction of the Agency of Natural Resources to be considered for renewable energy projects.

This bill received support from IBM, Green Mountain Power and a wide variety of solar and wind business as well as the usual environmental non-profits.

For an exciting follow up on what is happening in the private sector and the 20 electric companies in the state, listen to the podcast of Vermont Edition for Thursday, 4/23.  It will take all of us: government, utilities, private sector, and consumers to bring our energy use into something that is abundant, renewable, sustainable, safe and clean.

Over the past two weeks, the floor of the House has been a hotbed of debate.  Some of this debate has been deeply moving, some quite humorous, and some simply tri-partisan bickering.  Much of the time, however, I find the debate lively and engaging, emphasizing the need to have divergent points of view brought forward to help guide us toward thoughtful decision making.

By happenstance, the seat I picked on the first day of the session provides me with instant access to many of these views.  To my left, is a 5th term Democrat.  To my right sits the youngest member of the House.  Directly in back of me is the Republican leadership.  It has proven to be a great place as we work our way through these issues.

Last week, we passed the Marriage Equality Bill, the Budget Adjustment Bill and the Capital Bill.   These have been extensively covered in the news so I thought a quick update on other activities might be a relief.  Here goes:

Transportation:  H-438, the Transportation Bill, passed out of the House at the end of March and is now in the Senate.  The bill proposed a $120 million bond to be funded by a $.05 gas and diesel tax for the next three years.  Here is one way to quantify this:  if you drive 15,000 miles per year and your vehicle gets 20 mpg, a $.05 gas tax would cost you $37.50 per year. Compare this to the potential cost of damage due to potholes and it looks like a bargain.  Bonding also extends the use of ARRA (stimulus) monies where matching is required.

Here is where the Legislature and Administration now agree:  rail development is important to Vermont.  There will be a concentration of effort and money in getting rail from Burlington to Rutland.

Judiciary:  H-147, the Highway Traffic Safety Bill, comes up for third reading this week.  One of the more lively debates centered around the necessity and inconvenience of restricting young drivers.  This bill would keep junior operators off the road between 1:00 AM and 5:00 AM; restrict usage of cell phones and electronic devices; and would continue to restrict junior operators from carrying passengers for the first three months.  In addition, all drivers would be restricted to hands-free cell phone usage and not wearing a seatbelt would become a primary offense.  One outspoken opponent from a rural district said in a Patrick Henry sort of way:  “I will always vote for freedom over safety.  Why do we need laws to protect us from ourselves?”  A supporter noted that this law would likely save two lives, twelve serious injuries and $5 million dollars per year.  Another fact:  the age group least likely to wear a seatbelt is the 16-24 year olds.  Of the accidents which proved fatal for this age group, 58% were not wearing seatbelts.

Health Care:   Representative Maier, chair of the Health Care Committee has traveled to Washington and has been working with leaders from the Vermont Legislature, the Douglas Administration and our Congressional delegation on health care reform.  He believes that the prospects for national health care reform are looking better.  Legislation being drafted will address three key issues:  delivery, access and funding. For now, Vermont is well-positioned to receive more Medicaid and ARRA health IT money per capita than many states due to the excellent work that is already in place here.

Please join Joan Lenes and me at Bruegger’s Tuesday mornings from 7:30-8:30.  We have had some lively discussions.  We will be at Village Wine and Coffee on Monday April 28th from 4:30-5:30.  KLWebb22@mac.com.

(Note:  see Doyle Survey Results link above for a comparison of the Shelburne results to the full poll results)

The other day, I sat down with the Senator Doyle’s Town Meeting Day surveys and decided to “have at it.” What was on the mind of Shelburne voters and how did these surveys compare to the calls and emails I receive?  I counted each survey, all 201 of them, recording results, one question at a time.  I read longer responses on the back of the forms, then I entered the data onto an Excel spreadsheet and looked at the results.

Let us be very clear here.  The Doyle Survey is not a scientific poll. It is not set up to ensure a representative sample has been taken and the system for distribution is not standardized.  Since I tabulated the results myself without oversight, citizens must rely on my accuracy and integrity rather than standard survey protocol.

But the survey is not without merit.  As WPTZ noted last year,  “The Doyle survey is not a scientific poll, but a sampling of views of voters taking part in Town Meeting Day.”  After a quick call to my math genius friend John Huntington Smith, I learned that the survey may not be statistically significant but was useful in showing trends.  He said the survey has value, “you get a feel, it is not precise, but it is a feel.”   We talked about the inherent problems in the phrasing of questions, particularly question # 7.  He suggested that instead of showing the results in percentages, I should tabulate them by raw numbers (note:  this was presented as numbers in the Shelburne News article, however I recorded them in percentages here to compare with State results).

The danger, of course, comes in interpreting the data, but I couldn’t resist making comments on some of them and have converted those to percentages for easier understanding.  Please keep John Smith’s warning in mind.

Survey Trends:

Survey takers overwhelmingly (91%) felt statewide broadband and cell services were important to Vermont and 89% supported mandatory seatbelt laws for adults as well as children.  A few thought this law was already in effect, so I asked one of my law enforcement contacts.  He said that a seatbelt violation is not a primary offense, however you can be ticketed if you are stopped for something else, speeding for example, and are not wearing your seatbelt.

75% felt that the Vermont prison population should be reduced through the use of alternatives for non-violent offenders; while 71% felt drivers should be prohibited from using cell phones while driving.  About 5 people suggested limitations on cell phone use rather than an outright ban.  62% agreed with the idea of a gas tax with a few people suggesting a limit of 5 cents. 55% thought Vermont was not an affordable place to live and 52% of responders opposed lowering the drinking age to 18.

Our toughest questions:

The most controversial questions in our community, based on the press and calls and emails to me, were the success of our schools, same-sex marriage, re-licensing of Vermont Yankee and the performance of elected officials.  Half of the respondents thought schools were doing a good job while 30% did not. The “no’s” often noted the time-eternal problem of cost.

Regarding same-sex marriage, of the 201 respondents, 110 supported same-sex marriage while 69 did not.  The remaining 22 were undecided.

Renewing Vermont Yankee’s license found 41% of respondents for re-licensing, 39% against with the remainder undecided.  One respondent who was unsure added, “Vermont Yankee needs to be studied for efficiency, cost effectiveness and safety.  This decision should not be influenced by popular opinion.”

Legislature and Governor

I was curious whether responses to the performance of the Governor and Legislature were related so I scored these questions in relation to each other and sent the data to John Smith.  After a dizzying conversation with John about the difference between non-parametric and parametric tests, quartiles, chi-square and rejecting the null hypothesis, John was able to tell me that there was a very high inverse relationship between approval of job performance for the Legislature and the Governor.  A “yes” to the Governor’s performance tended to produce a “no” for the Legislature and visa versa.

John thought these numbers suggested that survey takers “had a clear idea of what they wanted to say and it was consistent.”  He also thought this reflected the seriousness with which people completed the survey but also warned again that “this should not be generalized beyond the self-selected sample of Shelburne voters.”