Sorry, my link did not seem to work.  To view the bill as passed out of the House:

1.  go to http://www.leg.state.vt.us/

2.  Under “Legislative Information Database,” click on “display current status”

3. enter H.446 (remember period) and “display status”

4.  you can view the progress of the bill on the table. Under “bill text” click on “as passed the house”

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.”

In 2006, the Legislature established the Commission on the Future of Economic Development (CFED).  Made up of leaders in the private sector and government, CFED was charged with identifying those elements that advance or impede economic development.  It was also asked to develop goals believed to be most critical to Vermont’s future prosperity and vitality.

From this work, the Committee identified four principal goals to establish economic viability, security and opportunity for all.  These were:

1.    Develop a highly-skilled multi-generational workforce
2.    Invest in digital, physical and human infrastructure
3.    Take advantage of our small scale to create nimble, efficient and effective government and regulation
4.    Leverage our brand and scale:  our rural character, reputation for environmental quality, and entrepreneurial spirit.

“Bold and disciplined action is needed to accomplish these goals,” the report stated.  “The legislature, administration, and myriad of economic and community partners must work together with unerring discipline to focus our policies, regulations, programs and incentives on the critical interconnection between Vermont’s assets, our collective values, our capabilities, and the opportunities which will increase state revenues and the prosperity of all Vermonters.”  http://www.snellingcenter.org/cfed

This session, the House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development has been working on a bill to develop near-term and long-term economic strategies guided by the four CFED goals.  Near-term strategies focus on stakeholder collaboration for effective use of the stimulus monies.  An example of this would be writing unified proposals for competitive grants. Long-term strategies set a statewide framework for collectively realizing sustainable economic prosperity.  An example here would be the requirement that the legislative and executive branches align new programs and initiatives with the four CFED goals.

The bill includes legislation that would advance development or remove impediments in a variety of areas.  A list of these is as follows:

•    Green Economy Initiatives
•    Workforce development
•    Housing incentive program
•    Inventor and entrepreneur assistance
•    Licensed lender exception
•    Energy efficiency
•    Forestry and biomass
•    Motion picture business
•    Tourism infusion: excess meals and rooms revenues
•    Federal funds and smart grid
•    Digital business
•    Small business/technology loan program
•    Microbusiness and entrepreneurship

If you would like me to email a copy of the 68-page bill or the 6-page description of this bill, you can contact me at: KLWebb22@mac.com.  985-2789.

Please join Joan Lenes and me on Tuesday mornings from 7:30-8:30 am at Brueggers and the 4th Monday (3/23) at Village Wine and Coffee.

March 5, 2009

First, the good news:  The American Recovery and Investment Act (ARRA), also known as the “Federal Stimulus Package,” was signed into law in February.  It is estimated that the ARRA will bring in approximately $925-950 million in resources over the next two years.  It is a highly complex package coming in roughly 300 different funding streams, each with its own terms and conditions.  Some of the funds will require state or local funding matches while others have tight time constraints. Most have very specific project parameters.

On February 26, Stephen Klein from the Joint Fiscal Office presented preliminary estimates as to the dispersal of these funds.  He cautioned us that these were truly preliminary.  They are still reviewing the implications and strings attached to these funds.  A percentage of matching dollars will likely be required to capture $240 million of these funds.  He estimated the following:

1.    $275-300 million will go to the Vermont General Fund
2.    $290 million will go to project funding such as transportation, energy, broadband, upgrading.
3.    $210 million to state, local and communities for schools, organizations, higher ed., research and businesses
4.    $25 million to individuals in the form of Pell grants, food stamps, SSI etc.

Representatives from the Legislature and Administration have been meeting continuously in order to better understand contingencies, plan and coordinate best use of these monies once they are available.

More good news:  Vermonters can also expect approximately $500 million in tax cuts for individuals and businesses.  Some of these tax cuts include credits for first time homebuyers, credit for education expenses, and child tax credits. We can also expect energy-related provisions for people who improve the energy efficiency of homes, purchase plug-in vehicles or invest in renewable energy such as biomass or wind among others.

Now, the not-so-good news.  By 2011, current projections indicate that we will face a deficit of more than $200 million if we stay on the same course.  Projected revenues are simply outpaced by spending.  Finance 101 reminds us that we must increase revenue, decrease spending, or both.  But these times call for more than that.  They also call for a clarification of principles and values that will guide us in restructuring and redesigning our state through hard times and into the future. Number shifting alone cannot do this.

When the Legislature returns, we will be addressing a 68-page bill that  1) establishes a state-wide guide to economic development, 2) promotes near-term economic development by getting the most out of ARRA and 3) promotes long-term economic development.  This bill will be guided by principles developed after 2 ½ years of testimony and public hearings from businesses and people throughout the state.  It is extensive.

Please join Joan Lenes and me at Bruegger’s Tuesday mornings at 7:30 or at Village Wine and Coffee most Monday afternoons at 4:30 or by appointment. I will be away the week of March 9th. KLWebb22@mac.com. I enjoy hearing from you.

A Visit to Vermont Yankee

This week, I attended a tour of the Vermont Yankee plant in Vernon hosted by Entergy.  About 20 legislators attended the tour.  Press and lobbyists were excluded.

All of us had been through security screening the week before the visit.  Apparently my traffic violations were not cause for concern and I was permitted to enter the plant.  I was issued a helmet, safety glasses and earplugs and was able to snap a picture outside the plant.  Once inside, alas, my camera was confiscated.

As a result I cannot show you the dizzying number of buttons, lights and computer screens pouring out graphs.  I cannot show you the repaired cooling towers, the dry cask storage, the spent fuel rods lying at the bottom of the hotel-size pool.  I cannot show you the faces of the employees hoping to keep their jobs.  I stood on top of a nuclear reactor.  I followed directions not to touch anything in radioactive areas.  I had lunch with employees.  “I wouldn’t work here if it weren’t safe,” said a union rep.  A conspicuously pregnant woman chatted with legislators.

By statute, the legislature grants approval for “continued operation” of the plant, however it is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that has jurisdiction over re-licensing. Many Shelburne residents have contacted me to vote against Vermont Yankee due to safety concerns.  The legislature cannot and must not make decisions based on safety issues.  Nuclear safety is federally regulated and falls to the NRC.  In addition to NRC and legislative approval, Vermont Yankee must receive a “certificate of public good” from the Vermont Public Service Board.

So what is the role of the legislature once a license is issued?  Within the frame of “continued operation,” the legislature can address economic and reliability factors.  Will the prices the utilities negotiate be good for Vermont?  Who bears responsibility if the decommissioning fund is inadequate?  Economically, is Vermont better off with or without Vermont Yankee?  The speed at which these and other questions are answered will determine whether the legislature addresses Vermont Yankee in 2009 or 2010.  As a member of the Energy Committee explained, if the economics work, then we look at reliability.

Other Shelburne residents have expressed concern over closing Vermont Yankee and the impact on global warming.   If we close Vermont Yankee in 2012, would this help speed our transition to renewable energy?  If we close Vermont Yankee in 2012 and are not prepared, are we risking an increase in global warming?   Are we failing our businesses like IBM?

I went back to the State House.  All the lights were on.

February 5, 2009

The State House has been a busy place with many people wanting to weigh in on the issues facing our state in these troubled times.  We are currently spending about 85% of our time in individual committees and this week, agency commissioners visited us to present budget information and the status of recent rescissions.  In addition, over 100 bills have been sent to committees.  I currently serve as clerk on the Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources Committee and have been placed on an additional joint committee to address issues related to Lake Champlain.  I will present this in a later column.  Here are a few highlights from last week:

SCHEDULE CHANGE:  Speaker Shap Smith has informed us that the legislature will be in recess (unpaid) for the first two weeks in March rather than the traditional one week.  Dropping a week in March allows flexibility to add it back in May when we have a clearer picture of the Federal Stimulus Package.  After April 15th, we will be better able to quantify additional revenue downgrades.

APPROPRIATIONS:  The Committee had a full week of testimony on the proposed FY 2010 budget and the Governor’s proposal to cut over 600 state employees. Administration has given the various state agencies targeted employee reduction numbers and a dollar figure.  This will be the fourth round of cuts.

TRANSPORTATION:  The Ethan Allen Amtrak route is still a hot topic in this committee and the hall has been filled with people and groups providing testimony. The possibility of upgrades to the passenger rail tracks between Rutland and Burlington using federal earmarks and stimulus money is being studied.  Across the state, ridership on public transportation has shown a 20% increase over last year. The Committee is also trying to match federal stimulus dollars with transportation projects and to determine the strings attached.

AGRICULTURE:   Pending full House approval, the Agriculture Committee will take on a new topic: “forest-based products and their markets.”  This should help raise the profile of forest products which accounts for $1.2 billion in revenues and is the second largest industry in the state.  I am sorry that I do not have anything to report this week on the recent drop in milk prices.

ENERGY: This week, the Commerce Committee took testimony on spent nuclear fuel, low-level radioactive waste and the decommissioning fund.  I will take a tour of Vermont Yankee this week.

HEALTH CARE:  H100 was introduced last week, the goal being universal access to essential health care services.  The bill proposed to establish health care service in Vermont through a publicly financed, integrated, regional health care delivery system.  You can follow this bill by going to the website: http://www.leg.state.vt.us and plugging in the bill number.

There has been much news regarding the looming budget deficits facing Vermont and the Nation.  While efforts to guide our state through this economic downturn predominate, the 14 committees in the House are also working on other critical issues.  I thought a better use of this column this week would be to provide you with an update on a few of them.

Natural Resources Committee:  Most of the efforts here will be on 1) how to expedite, to site, and deploy new renewable energy sources and 2) the pending question of continued operation of the Vermont Yankee.  Specific legislation has not yet reached the committee.

Judiciary:  This committee has received a draft copy of Senate bill S.13 which was developed in response to the growing concern regarding sexual crimes against children.     This bill proposes a statewide comprehensive approach and includes initiatives directed toward school programs, reporting requirements, sex offender registry compliance, the elimination of deferred sentences for offenders, and mandatory sentencing.

Transportation:   The committee has heard extensive testimony regarding future plans for the Vermont Rail System.  Under special scrutiny is the economic impact of the proposal to replace rail service with bus service along the western corridor.  The long term plan is to upgrade the tracks and restore train service. There will be a public hearing at the State House on January 21st at 5 P.M which I will attend.

Education:  5 of the 11 members are new to this committee now chaired bv Johanna Leddy Donovan of Burlington.  The committee has heard the administration’s proposal to freeze funds sent to local school boards, shift spending back to towns, level fund all categorical aid programs including special education and technical education among others.  How these proposals fare in relation to state law and the goals of the legislature will unfold over the coming weeks.

Fish, Wildlife, and Water Resources.  This session, we expect to take up legislation that addresses invasive aquatic species, riparian buffer zones, storm water regulation, deer herd browse, and “compounds of emerging concern” entering our waterway among others. We will also be looking at the effectiveness of the Clean and Clear Act, its cost and impact on phosphorus levels in Lake Champlain.

Health Care:  The legislative goals for this session in spite of fiscal constraints, are to expand access to health care, improve quality and contain costs.  No small task.  A member of this committee informed me that the Health Care Affordability Act of 2006 continues to drive this committee.  The focus will be on strengthening programs created by the legislature such as Catamount and Dr. Dynasaur as well as less well-known efforts to reorganize care for people with chronic health conditions.  There is some hope that Senator Sanders will succeed in identifying our state as a pilot for a universal access to health care system.

Shelburne News Question 4:  Alternative sources of power generation must play a significant role in our energy planning into the future.  What do you feel are the most viable energy options for Vermont?

First, I would like to take the word “alternative” out of “alternative energy.” That is economically and environmentally the most viable option.  If we subsidized renewable sources – wind, solar, water, geo-thermal and biomass energy – as we have petroleum, ethanol and nuclear, they would be the clear economic winners, not the “alternatives.”

Second, all of the current available options are viable: wind, solar, hydro, and biomass. Our geography and weather patterns make us well suited to wind and small hydro-generated plants.  Our forests and farmlands produce a variety of forms of biomass: wood, grass, and agricultural waste products.  Solar is an option in open or highly developed areas. Electrically-powered mass transit could one day take pressure off our roads while reducing carbon emissions.

Third, I support an aggressive plan to develop localized generation of power – power that is owned, constructed and operated by Vermonters. Localized generation strengthens our grid, creates greater independence, and keeps money here.  Energy options must be determined region by region based on microclimate and economy.  In addition, the closer the production to the consumer, the greater the efficiency.  It is estimated that nearly 8% of energy is lost over long transmission lines.

Fourth, we must identify and overcome those barriers that are preventing construction of green energy. We are at “peak oil,” having consumed half of the world’s oil supply.  We must use our growing awareness of the limits of our finite resources and global warming to move forward and tap into those that are infinite.  Germany has gone from 2% renewably powered energy to 10%.   If we start now, it is possible that 90% of our energy could be from renewable sources within 30 years.

As a final note, energy conservation and green construction practices should always be part of the renewable mix.