An Open Letter to Some Democratic Lawmakers from a Fellow Democrat

Uncategorized

Dear Democratic State Lawmakers,

I’d like to deliver a word of advice to some of you all – especially a few folks in the Senate.

Now I know you want to be pragmatic about Vermont Yankee. And I know that pragmatism is a relative thing in politics. Obviously if it were absolute, there’d be no question. VY is past its expiration date by any measure, its record of problems is large, they’ve lied to you about their operations and they have a radioactive leak they still can’t find after weeks. Add to that the fact that they’re proposing power for Vermonters at a rate currently higher than the open market price, and for only 11% of our state’s demand. Far from the “third of our power” they provided in the past (and that we keep hearing about). There’s no part of objective pragmatism that wants any of that deal.

But again, “political” pragmatism is a relative thing – and it’s relative to where you feel the public is. If there are two sides, you all often feel the pragmatic place is in the middle – and its because that “pragmatism” is about prospects for supporting your further electoral ambitions. Hey, you might get to run for Governor someday!

So here’s another factor to consider in your electoral pragmatism calculus.

Cancer rates may not be up around Vermont Yankee yet, but that will change now that this stuff is getting into the groundwater. We all know that. The tritium level increased dramatically today, and that’s going to start having an impact on public health – and those effects may start cropping up right about the time you might want to run for Governor, or Lt. Gov, or US House, or whatever. There will be sick kids. It’s not hard to read the future on this. We all know where this is going.

So there will be sickness. Cancers. And then there will be campaign commercials from your primary opponents (and you can be certain there will be primary opponents – we will see to that). And those ads will remind viewers that, when you had the chance to put a stop to this, you didn’t. Because you thought worrying about cancer rates among Vermonters wasn’t important. Wasn’t responsible. And those ads will run on the TV and the radio and the newspapers over and over and over.

So you may want to ask yourselves again what the “pragmatic” thing to do vis-a-vis Vermont Yankee is.

Your friend,

John

12 thoughts on “An Open Letter to Some Democratic Lawmakers from a Fellow Democrat”

  1. It’s a sad, sad state of affairs when “leaders” have to be urged to protect people from horrific, traumatizing, deadly afflictions such as cancer not because they are horrific, traumatizing, and deadly, but because not to will affect their election prospects down the road.

  2. 1) They plan to RAISE RATES above the New England grid rate, so relisencing offers no monetary benefit to Vermonters.

    2) The amount of power provided by the plant can be easily supplanted by simple efficiency measures (like installing compact fluorescent bulbs), which we should be doing, anyway.

    3) They LIED. On MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. About IMPORTANT things, and thus cannot be trusted.

    4) With the current leak, they have proved that they are either INCOMPETENT or CROOKED. (Given their penchant for lying, I’m guessing the latter, but have no proof. It would not surprise me in the least if they were delaying the “discovery” of the source of the leak until after relisencing, at which point they can procure cleanup and repair funds at a lower interest rate, thus reserving more for executives’ pay.)

    5) They are UNDERFUNDED, and are attempting to “Fairpoint-ize” by rolling all the costs into a shell corporation which will fail, declare bankruptcy, and leave Vermonters (you know, the ones who VOTE) to foot the cleanup bill.

    The company deserves exactly NOTHING from Vermont, except a fond farewell, and a very big stick to ensure they clean up after themselves before they vacate the premises.

    The legislature had better not capitulate to the weasels in suits who have descended upon the statehouse wielding promises to grease palms fill campaign warchests in exchange for a favorable vote.  In times past, that was called corruption, and it won’t go un-noticed.

  4. It seems that the people — at least the “likely to vote for a Democrat” people — are already NOT in the middle. A look at how many politically-engaged Democrats are participating in forums and organizing conversations about closing Vt. Yankee suggests that Democratic voters are disproportionately in favor of closing the plant as scheduled.

    Groups like VPIRG, which has a lot of direct contact with members who must be likely Dem voters, are hearing MANY of those people say the plant is unsafe and Entergy can’t be trusted.

    I don’t think legislators will be making any friends  by trying to “play the middle” between those voters and the out-of-state utility executives at Entergy.

  5. but I spoke informally with a couple of legislators (sorry, no names) and they both seem to be under the impression that, if they just “sit tight,” Vermont Yankee is about to throw-in the towel themselves.  The fact that more than one person expressed this same perspective leads me to believe that someone has made a deliberate point of giving this impression.  If that is the case, some of our legislators who think their constituents are on the fence, may be inclined to avoid a potentially damaging vote.

    ‘Just thought I’d toss that into the mix!

  6. I wanted to also let folks know about other, more subtle Entergy issues going on.  While I am more than ready to vote no (to their continued operation), we also have two more years of this plant.

    Since they have been subsidized at every turn, we will be on the hook for god knows how much $$$ in the long run.

    However, thanks to the Governer, we (the House Ways and Means Committee) learned of one area they have been getting a subsidy.  In their thermal discharges to the river.

    There is a permit whose charge is based on the design capacity for thermal discharges (Entergy, McNeil, other power sources using water to cool their systems).  The current rate is $0.0009 per gallon of daily design flow with a cap of $27,500 per year.  The Administration proposal in the fee bill was to raise the rate to $0.001 per gallon with a new cap of $60,000.  Upon investigation we learned that only one plant hits the cap…guess which one?  You got it…Entergy.  With a design flow of up to 534,000,000 gallons per day, their fee would be $534,000 per year (not the cap of $60,000).   Many of us on the committee supported the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee recommendation to remove the cap.  But a compromise was voted on at $210,000 (leaving over $300,000 in Entergy’s coffers).  One of their lobbyists even bragged to me that he would be reporting back to them that he “saved” them $300K. (He was joking, but it was still a victory for Entergy not to have to pay the full freight considering their place in the public eye these days).

    As we neared the final vote, we even learned that the 1 degree Supreme Court ruling (relating to thermal discharges…the flow covered by this exact permit), will actually save Entergy approximately $1.3 million per year!  Not sure why we could not recoup just over a third of that for environmental conservation?

    While we moved in a good direction, I am hopeful that we will see the cap lifted before the fee bill becomes law.

  7. I don’t disagree with your strong message advising legislators that there are very long-term consequences to their potential vote on whether to approve relicensing of the Entergy VY plant.

    But (and you knew there would be one), I think your tactic is unwise. Few people, whether in the legislature or not, respond well to threats. And I have a few questions.

    First, who is the “we” who will “see to” there being primary opponents?

    Second, have you actually tried recruiting legislative candidates lately? I have, and they’re not exactly thick on the ground or hanging low in the trees. They’d have to put their jobs and lives on hold for at least 6 months per year, more in election years. They’d be signing up to ask their friends and neighbors for significant cash contributions for a campaign they might not win. And if they win, they’re getting a job where they need to respond to irate tax payer phone calls at all hours of the day and night, or comments in the grocery store, at their kid’s games, at the dump.  They don’t have the resources they need (no offices or staff) to do the job they were elected to do, and they can’t trust their main sources of information — lobbyists. They spend non-session time in countless, endless meetings, at early-dark-thirty breakfasts, at rubber chicken dinners, and more fundraisers. And for all this, they get a license plate, a parking space, and a stipend, not a paycheck. They are routinely pilloried in the press and vilified in the blogs.

    And yes, there are upsides to serving in the legislature. There’s the sense of “giving back” to your neighbors and to the state by doing part of the heavy lifting, trying your best to understand the issues and somehow combine your best judgment and your constituents’ wishes. There’s the feeling of wanting to make this corner of the world a better place, to keep what’s good, dump or ban what’s bad, and explore what’s next for what could be even better. There’s the heady feeling of taking up your share of the responsibility for making the state work — one one-hundred-eightieth of it. And there’s a certain camaraderie that works in concert with an amazement at how personalities and pragmatism play out in pursuit of personal visions of Vermont.

    Oh yeah, and then there’s the receptions and parties and booze for those who partake.

    And still, legislative candidates are not clamoring at the gates, even when there’s a hot issue to react to and campaign on.

    A different and possibly more effective approach would be before a vote to personally and publicly commit to work hard — and recruit/organize others to do likewise — on the campaigns of those who vote the way you think they should.

    You know, accentuate the positive.

    Could work.

    NanuqFC

    The time is always right to do the right thing. ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Comments are closed.