Keurig Green Mountain to create 550 jobs in Georgia.

Douglasville, Georgia, that is. And it’s going, going, gone, off to the union-free right-to-work south to join mad river canoe, green mtn salsa and who-all, after having gobbled up over $9 million from VEDA for “small business development” over the last ten years, with a banjo on my knee.

A couple years down the road, look for Co-cola to keep a small facility in Waterbury dedicated to on-site retail bottling of spring water, a natural consequence of H756 (aka the Green Mountain Coffee K-cup Tax Exemption Bill) of March 2012.

http://vtdigger.org/2014/06/19…

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

Last night, I attended a PSB public hearing in Shoreham concerning Phase II of the Vermont Gas pipeline. 250-300 people, predominantly Addison County residents, turned out at Shoreham Elementary School to hear testimony and public comment concerning the intensely controversial pipeline extension which would pass from Middlebury through gate stations at Cornwall and Shoreham before crossing under Lake Champlain to International Paper in Ticonderoga. Speakers against Phase II outnumbered speakers in favor of the project by approximately four to one (my tally of sixty-plus speakers.)

Speakers against Phase II fell into a couple main groups:

Objections on legal grounds:

*Pipeline Phase II is not in compliance with the Addison County Regional Plan which explicitly precludes development of energy infrastructure involving “undue out-of-state transmission.”

*Regarding the taking of private property by eminent domain, Sec. 1. 12 V.S.A. § 1040 says:

“(a)  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no governmental or private entity may take private property through the use of eminent domain if the taking is primarily for purposes of economic development…”

 exception is made for public utilities, …

“including entities engaged in the generation, transmission, or distribution of electric, gas, sewer and sewage treatment, or communication services;”

(Note: Vermont Gas is not a public utility.)

*Conditions on Phase I MOU’s regarding land acquisition are not being observed or enforced. There are insufficient assets in the easement fund. Land agents for Vermont Gas are performing actions identical to real estate agents in their interactions with landowners but are not being regulated accordingly. At present, there are irregularities concerning disclosure and those same agents regularly attempt to advise landowners, representing themselves as mediators (which they are not). An independent council must be set up to represent public interest in matters of compensation for land taken by eminent domain.

*Public Trust has been abused: the review process for the pipeline has been different from that for other recent applicants with similar projects; no “Least Cost Independent Analysis” review  was required for pipeline Phase II – why not? PSB is violation of its own protocol.

*An incredible vagueness of landowner agreements (especially for those who will never be hooked-up but will nevertheless have Vermont Gas proprietary structures on their properties forever) was cited verbatim.

*Addison County residents are not satisfied that PSB has done due diligence for what will inevitably be a long-term (50-year) project should Phase II proceed.

*Town meeting referendums against Phase II with over 90% approval throughout Addison County were noted.

Objections on economic grounds:

*GazMetro, a company with over $5 billion assets, was allowed to front load the $80 million cost of pipeline planning & construction on  Vermont ratepayers. The project will benefit an out-of-state corporation and a foreign holding company (GazMetro.)

*NYS said no to running the pipeline more directly through the Adirondacks. Why are we hosting it?GazMetro has a non-binding bid on railway transport through existing NYS rail corridor. Alternatives exist – why were they not explored?

*Homeowner conversion from oil to natural gas would cost $10,000+ per household and would deliver customers to a single supplier holding a monopoly on the fuel.

*Vermont Gas claims of savings of $2,000 per household are grossly inflated. In any event, availability of natural gas to individual homes and communities throughout Addison County will be limited to the village centers of Cornwall and Shoreham. Homeowners adjacent to the pipeline will bear all the risk but will receive none of the benefit.

Objections on grounds of concern for environmental damage and climate change:

*An enormous pond of toxic sludge dumped by International Paper sits buried in the lake sediment off Ticonderoga. It has not been mitigated as it has been deemed too dangerous to disturb. Directional drilling will tunnel through the sludge pond and the pipeline will be laid through or under it.

*Engineers Construction Inc. of Williston, the company retained for directional drilling for the pipeline, will be faced with a 5000′ transit of the lake bottom. The longest drill ECI has accomplished to date is 800′ (per company info.)

*Lake flora and fauna at great risk in the event of either pipeline failure or disruption of the toxic sludge pond off Ticonderoga (during directional drilling or subsequently.)

*Many speakers cited the recent White House report on climate change in urging the PSB not to grant Certificate of Pubic Good. The  general sentiment is best expressed by one speaker who said,

“In the year 2014, no further development of fossil fuel infrastructure can be seen as being in the public good. It has been sold to us a by the governor and others as a bridge fuel to large-scale renewable energy. It is not a bridge fuel!”

Speakers in support of Phase II included spokespersons from both NYS and VT chambers of commerce, regional development boards, business groups and industry. The following is a fair representation of their sentiments:

*Ticonderoga Chamber of Commerce likes the project and says it is vital to the economic health of the town. United Steel Workers of IP like it, for similar reasons; Ticonderoga Regional Development likes it, noting that IP operates “within the confines of a national park” and is therefore very sensitive to environmental concerns and regulations; North Country Chamber of Commerce also likes it and notes that IP’s continued health and presence in Ticonderoga is essential to North Country economic health.

*Shoreham Fire Department would rather fight a pipeline fire than a truck or train fire, as far as natural gas is concerned.

*OMYA  of Florence likes it; they are currently using liquified natural gas in their operations but could easily modify their equipment.

*Vermont Business Round Table likes it. Vermont foresters like it, as they are major providers of pulpwood to IP.

*Several self-identfying scientists noted that converting from #6 diesel to natural gas yields a 33% reduction in carbon/sulfur emissions; that fracking is safe – it has a 60-year history; and that methane is colorless and tasteless and easily soluble in water.

*Candidate Emily Peyton, resplendent in a scarlet tricorn, noted,

“Every house can be an independent energy station.”

Whatever that means.

A terrible bill – and at this moment, inchoate.

Why inchoate? Because as currently amended and being considered by the House, S.91 neither conforms to nor addresses its stated purpose, as introduced last session.

Date: February 8, 2013

Subject: Education; independent schools; public funds; tuition; special education:

This bill proposes to require that in order to receive publicly funded tuition dollars, an independent school shall be approved for special education in at least four categories and shall arrange for the provision of services in any other category, shall maintain a “blind admissions policy” for all publicly funded students, and shall meet other specific requirements.

Sections 1-4 followed, delimiting the conditions under which an independent school could receive, or continue to receive, public monies (in the form of school district tuitions), covering such concerns as bias-free enrollment, blind admission, provision made for four categories of special education, provision for free- or reduced-lunches, and the requirement that faculty and administration hold state licensure.

In the amended version, all four of these sections have been stricken, and following substituted:

Sec. 1. PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS; MORATORIUM; REPEAL

(a) Privatization of public school. Notwithstanding the authority of a school district to cease operating an elementary or secondary school and to begin paying tuition on behalf of its resident students, a school district shall not cease operation of a school with the intention, for the purpose, or with the

result of having the school building or buildings reopen as an approved independent school serving essentially the same population of students. [emphasis added]

Subsections (b) and (c) direct the State Board of Education not to approve such an independent school, under these circumstances exclusively, and asserts that such a school shall be ineligible to receive any publicly funded tuitions. Further, the Secretary of Education is directed to determine the constitutionality either of allowing or prohibiting such an action. The act is to take effect on passage.

The result is that S.91, rather than addressing concerns that independent schools like St. Johnsbury Academy, Sharon Academy, Burr & Burton Academy inter alia conform to the conditions outlined in the original bill in order to be eligible to receive public tuitions, now addresses implicitly the situation at the North Bennington Graded School District.

Last summer, the North Bennington board officially decided to close its public school and lease the building to the independent Village School of North Bennington, which the board was given authority to do by voters and supported fully itself. In so doing, faculty, administration, student body, special services, and physical plant were all preserved intact. The North Bennington board and voters had concluded that independence was the optimal — if not the only — way to sustain a school that has felt the pains of ever-increasing costs, even as enrollment has declined in recent years. Like many other schools throughout the state. The board believed the independent model to be more sustainable because of its ability to attract tuitioning children from out-of-district and to privately fundraise. (http://www.nbgsonline.org/)

Note that NBGS as currently configured satisfies all four of the original stipulations concerning independent schools and public funding. Although none of those stipulations exist in S.91 as amended.

So what exactly is the purpose of S.91 at this point? Besides summarily forbidding an action that any number of other school districts in the state may contemplate, should NBGS’s experiment prove successful?

(Almost missed this one! – promoted by Sue Prent)

from House calendar for tomorrow’s session:

Amendment to be offered by Rep. Michelsen of Hardwick to the recommendation of amendment of the Committee on Government Operations to S. 86

First: By adding a Sec. 73a to read:

Sec. 73a. PROHIBITION ON LONG WINTERS

Winter shall end on March 20th of every year, and after that date, there shall

not be any:

(1) snow;

(2) storms; or

(3) temperatures below freezing.

Second: In Sec. 74, by adding a subdivision (4) to read:

(4) Sec. 73a (prohibition on long winters) shall take effect on April 1,

2014, and shall apply to every year thereafter.

It is true that S.204 (aka “VT State Bank”) failed to move out of Senate Finance Committee in time to be sent to the House of Representatives yesterday (3/26/14). Nevertheless, I saw/heard the following during the long knock-em-down drag-em-out concerning S.220 (Workers Comp, registry of sole contractors, advertising funds for tourism, etc, etc):

on page 528, Senate Journal for the date:

Senators Ashe, Bray, French, Lyons, MacDonald, Mullin, Pollina, and White


move to amend the bill as follows:


First: By adding a new section to be numbered Sec. 25 to read as follows:


Sec. 25. VERMONT STATE TREASURER; CREDIT FACILITY FOR 
LOCAL INVESTMENTS


(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the 
Vermont State Treasurer shall have the authority to establish a credit facility of 
up to 10 percent of the State’s average cash balance on terms acceptable to the 
Treasurer for purposes established by the Treasurer’s Local Investment
Advisory Committee.


(b) The amount authorized in subsection (a) of this section shall include all 
credit facilities authorized by the General Assembly and established by the 
Treasurer prior to or subsequent to the effective date of this section, and the 
renewal or replacement of those credit facilities.

State bank gets a toe in the door? And if so, what’s Mullin doing there? Or 10% is just a popular number these days?  

A short follow-up to my comment to Katrinka’s “Green Mountain Coffee Rackets” on 3/11/14 concerning H756 (aka Green Mountain Coffee K-cup exemption), back in March 2012, and its possible unintended consequences.

In case you haven’t seen the FreePress this morning:

Keurig [Green Mountain] and Peet’s plan to launch a selection of Peet’s K-Cup packs by the end of the summer. Keurig said Peet’s will continue to roast the beans for its K-Cup packs at its facility in Alameda, Calif., and the roasted beans will be transported to Keurig for grinding and packaging in K-Cup packs.

I don’t think this is quite what the Lege had in mind, do you? That a transnational holding company (Coca-Cola) might one day acquire Green Mountain Coffee and turn what was meant as a limited exemption for a valued local business into a nationally-expanding business plan, on Vermont’s dime. (Starbucks was admitted to the K-Cup club just hours before the announcement was made about Peet’s.)

http://www.burlingtonfreepress…

Just wait until Coca-Cola starts pressing for an exemption for on-site retail water bottling…