As we all know, the most unpopular proposals in Gov. Shumlin’s budget plan are his ideas for raising revenue: slashing the Earned Income Tax Credit, capping Reach Up benefits, and imposing a tax on break-open tickets. The Legislature doesn’t especially like any of them, and has been casting about for alternatives. Many of which fly in the face of Shumlin’s oft-stated opposition to raising “broad-based taxes,” defined by him as income, sales, and rooms and meals.

Meanwhile, Shumlin continues to publicly tout his budget plan. To little apparent effect.

So at his news conference today, he tried a new line. A reporter mentioned New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s plan to turn a temporary tax increase on high earners into a permanent hike, and asked if Shumlin wouldn’t consider raising taxes on the rich. His response? We don’t need to do that because we’ve already slammed the wealthy.

We’re doing it. We have one of the most progressive and highest income taxes on wealthy people in the nation. I’m glad that Governor Cuomo is joining us in that tax policy, because I think those who make the most should pay the most. But we’re doing it right now in Vermont.

When asked again if another increase wouldn’t be appropriate, he replied:

Well, we’ve done it. As you may recall, not only do we have a high marginal rate at the top — 8.9% — but a couple of years ago, I just want to point this out, that over the protestation of Governor Douglas, we through a budget override, we took away the exemption on capital gains which allowed wealthier Vermonters to pay a lower rate of state income tax for capital gain earned income than they do now. And we fixed that.

Vermont’s top tax rate is actually 8.95%, not 8.9. New York’s top rate is 8.82%. See, that 13/100ths of a percent makes all the difference.

After the jump: The Christie Inconsistency, not explained.

Well, that was my cue to mention Shumlin’s recent comments to a New Jersey newspaper, in which he attacked Republican Governor Chris Christie for vetoing “income tax increases for the millionaires and billionaires.” Bear in mind that New Jersey’s top tax rate is 8.97% — virtually identical to and a little bit higher than Vermont’s. Shumlin, er, completely dodged the question.

You know what. Let me talk a little about Governor Christie. I was criticizing Governor Christie’s record as governor. And this is my criticism of Governor. Christie and why I believe [Democratic State Sen.] Barbara Buono would be a better Governor for New Jersey. Governor Christie is one of the few governors in America who got elected along with me and some others in 2010 whose unemployment rate is not much different from when he got elected. Now look at mine. We’ve gone down, last week we were down to 4.7%. If you look at Maryland and massachusetts and some other states around the country, even some with Republican Governors, they’re growing jobs.

Governor Christie made a big deal of saying that if you elected him, he was going to make the NJ comeback happen. Well, it’s been the NJ fallback. They’ve seen property taxes go through the roof, people continue to struggle to find jobs, they are not growing prosperity, and he has shoved expenses onto the struggling middle class. So I just think that change would be good for NJ, and as the Democratic Governors chair, we’re going to do everything we can to bring about that change.

A complete evasion of my question, and a pretty inartful one at that. I remain in a state of puzzlement over why 8.97% is too low for New Jersey’s one-percenters, while 8.95% is as high as Vermont can possibly go.

And somehow I doubt that the Governor’s new, “Hey, I’m the real progressive” argument is going to convince any skeptical Democrats or Progressives in the Legislature.  

Hey, remember Senate Bill 30? The wind moratorium bill, from which the “moratorium” was dropped before the bill was approved by the strongly anti-wind Senate Natural Resources Committee?

Well, it’s been rewritten again, and rendered even more bland and toothless. And a scheduled vote by the full Senate has been postponed until March 26, apparently because Lt. Gov. Phil Scott (noted wind skeptic) is out of town this week, and S.30 backers want every available hand on deck.

Which certainly indicates that S.30 doesn’t have majority support, since Scott would only vote in case of a tie. Opponents of S.30, who don’t want any new restrictions added to an already rigorous process for siting renewable energy projects, are cautiously optimistic they can defeat the bill on the Senate floor. (In fact, at least one lobbyist was hoping the vote would be held today, in the belief that S.30 would lose.)

And should it survive the Senate, it stands no chance of getting through the House. Governor Shumlin, who opposes S.30, made that clear at his weekly news conference this morning:

“I’m not overly concerned about that particular bill for the reason that, in talking to my colleagues in the House, I understand that they’re not any more enthralled with it than I am. So I’d be surprised if it comes to my desk.”

As for the rewrite: it begins with a complete overhaul of the “Findings.” In the old S.30, the “Findings” were chock full of anti-wind rhetoric. The new version is a lot shorter and basically neutral in tone.

The rest of the bill contains very little in the way of new rules and requirements; instead, it’s full of orders that the Department of Public Service “consider” certain things and “report” on a laundry list of ideas. As far as I can tell, the only remaining new mandate is the imposition of Act 250 requirements on new energy projects.

And the vast majority of its requested reports are for items that have already been fully explored and addressed by state agencies — as I recounted in my previous diary on the regulatory history of wind energy in Vermont. Health, environment, wildlife, aesthetics, water quality and erosion control, and the commercial viability of wind farms.

The revised S.30 also raises the trigger point for such regulation; the old bill required Act 250 review for any new facility capable of producing 500 kW or more; the new bill raises that floor to 2.2 mW, which would exempt many solar installations.

In sum, backers of tougher wind regulation are back on their heels. Which is not to say the battle is over, but things are not looking good for Senate Bill 30.  

Opponents of utility-scale wind development in Vermont have said a lot of untrue and inflammatory things about wind energy. They accuse wind developers and advocates of a “mad rush” to “destroy” our mountains and ridgelines, not to mention “time-honored Vermont traditions.” They bemoan all the supposedly unanswered questions about wind — its safety, efficacy, and effects on forests, wildlife, and water quality. They also question the viability of wind power in Vermont, and why turbines must be sited on ridgelines instead of, say, in the Champlain valley.

Would it surprise you to learn that these questions have all been thoroughly explored right here in Vermont, in a lengthy series of reports, working papers, and official actions? All freely available online for your perusal?

Well, surprise, surprise.

In part 1 of this two-part series, I reviewed the legislative history of Vermont’s renewable energy policy — how it was crafted carefully, painstakingly, over 15 years time, with ample opportunity for one and all to have their say. Here, in part 2, I’ll look at our regulatory history, and outline a parallel process — equally rigorous and inclusive.

__________________________

We begin part 2 back in 1996, when “Independence Day” ruled the box office and (oh God no) “Macarena” was top of the pops. That was the year we entered the Age of Wind, as the Public Service Board approved Vermont’s first modern wind farm, at Searsburg. (Photo: Searsburg turbines.)

The project’s opening marked the midpoint of an extensive study of wildlife impacts. Which found, mirabile dictu, pretty much no impact whatsoever.

The study began in 1994 and ended in 1998. It was the first in the eastern US to study a wind farm’s effect on bird populations, fatalities, behavior, and migration patterns before, during, and after construction of a commercial-scale wind facility. The conclusion: “Overall, it appeared that impacts were minor. Those that were found are not likely to [have] significant adverse effects on populations of any species on a regional scale.”  

Researchers found no bird carcasses near the turbines, and no evidence of scavenger activity. This doesn’t prove there were no turbine-related fatalities, but it strongly suggests that “only a few, if any birds” were killed.

After the jump: Why ridgelines are the only good sites for turbines; ways to limit aesthetic issues; considerations of water quality; why Act 250 jurisdiction was rejected; and a review of the literature on turbine noise.

In 2002, DPS released a report on Vermont’s wind energy resources, which reported that “Vermont’s wind resource is abundant enough to meet a significant portion of the state’s electric power needs.” The report notes that with the “forthcoming shutdown” of Vermont Yankee (if only), “opportunities for replacing nuclear generation with wood and wind generation should be explored.”

And where are the best wind energy sites?

“In general, the strength and persistence of the wind typically increases with elevation, such that the strongest winds are often found at the highest mountain summits. Furthermore, in the northeast United States, winds flow from west to east. For these two reasons, Vermont’s topography is particularly well suited for wind power generation.”

[Italics mine.]

Which answers the question, why put any wind farms in Vermont at all? Because its “topography is particularly well suited.”

The report acknowledged the benefits and potential drawbacks of wind energy. Benefits included emission-free power, “free, inexhaustible resources”, financial benefits for communities and landowners, and reducing dependence on imported fuel and long-range power transmission.

The drawbacks included aesthetic concerns and potential impacts on wildlife. Although it noted that “Experience with the Searsburg facility has shown that these impacts can be mitigated through careful site selection and design.”

Also in 2002, landscape architect Jean Vissering wrote “Wind Energy and Vermont’s Scenic Landscape,” a report commissioned by DPS. Vissering noted that “Ridgelines provide the best location for wind generation facilities in Vermont, and elevations between 2000 and 3500 feet above sea level are ideal for maximum power production.” Icing becomes a problem at higher elevations, so no turbines on Mount Mansfield.

Vissering also noted that the Public Service Board “by statute uses most of the criteria of Act 250,” which seems to argue against the need for S.30, now before the Senate. Criterion 8 of Act 250 reads as follows:

‘Will not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty of the area, aesthetics, historic sites or rare and irreplaceable natural areas.’

The report extensively discusses the factors and elements that should be used in determining aesthetic impact, and ways to absolutely minimize visual disruption. (Photos below: Searsburg turbines at a distance of 1/2 mile (left) and four miles (right). From the Visserling report.)

In 2003, DPS commissioned a study of wind power potential on public lands (local, state, and federal). The study reported that less than 3% of Vermont’s total land area has winds that are strong and steady enough to make turbines economically feasible. This land is almost entirely on ridgelines; the report specifically ruled out the Champlain Valley, because the sheltering effect of the Adirondacks and Greens keep the winds below “what is usually required for commercial wind development.”

The number of feasible sites was further diminished by the need for power transmission: “Turbine [sites] that were greater than 7 kilometers (4.35 miles) from existing transmission lines were… eliminated on the basis that it would be close prohibitive to build new transmission facilities.”

Given all the physical limitations on potential turbine sites, it’s clear that wind could never become more than a modest portion of Vermont’s energy portfolio, and it’s completely unrealistic to think that wind farms could ever become more than a small part of our landscape.

2004 brought a brace of “working papers” on wind energy issues released by he Agency of Natural Resources. These show the range of issues given thorough consideration by ANR. A few highlights:

Benefits of wind energy. Earth-friendly alternative to fossil fuels, no impact from mining or transportation of fuels; a diverse array of sources means less dependence on a single source; renewables create jobs, plus financial gains for host communities and landowners; reduces dependence on imported fuels; reduces vulnerability of energy system because renewables are more dispersed.

Aesthetics/Scenic Resource Impacts of wind. Details the many potential effects and how best to limit or eliminate them. Very thorough and detailed.

Erosion and Water Quality Concerns. Notes that high-elevation soils, streams, and wetlands are particularly fragile. Any construction near a high-altitude stream requires a special federal permit. Any alteration of wetlands requires a state permit. Notes that applicants for projects on state lands are required to submit plans for erosion prevention and sedimentation control.

Impacts on wildlife, plant species and natural communities. Cautions that wind turbines “should not be considered on sites where there would be significant cumulative impacts to wildlife populations and important habitats.” This process was diligently applied in Searsburg, resulting in little or no effect on wildlife.

Later that same year, ANR issued a policy on development of wind or other renewable energy sources on state land. It notes ANR’s dual responsibilities in this area: protecting Vermont’s natural landscape, and fostering renewable energy as a way of mitigating the impacts of energy production and climate change.

The report concluded that construction of wind farms or even test towers on ANR lands was inappropriate. It also notes that less than 1% of all ANR lands would be commercially viable for wind energy. The document left the door open to future policy changes, if it is determined that ANR lands are the best sites for wind projects, and that the public interest in wind development outweighs other considerations.

In late 2004, Governor Douglas’ Commission on Wind Energy issued its final report. Douglas has been a consistent critic of ridgeline wind. Indeed, at the time, the only active opposition to wind farms was over aesthetic issues, and Douglas was seen as bowing to wealthy Republican supporters with mountain view property. (Wind was pretty much the only issue on which Douglas was a staunch preservationist. Ski areas, fine; wind, nope.)

The report’s most interesting conclusion is that “Section 248 is the appropriate vehicle for siting commercial wind generation projects.” It said that the Public Service Board should “give due consideration” to Act 250 criteria — which the PSB already did — but recommended against subjecting wind projects to Act 250 review. Pertinent quotes:

“The PSB and the Environmental Board are both experienced at examining environmental impacts. … The Environmental Board and local district commissions that are responsible for Act 250 may not be equipped to deal with these aspects of energy projects.”

“Overall, the PSB has demonstrated adequate consideration of local and regional input.”

“Applying both Section 248 and Act 250 to proposed wind generation projects would result in a duplicative and inefficient process, and serve to diminish the PSB’s authority to consider statewide “public good” in its deliberations.”

So, in an Administration unfriendly to wind power, the PSB was judged to be adequately considering local and regional input. Hmm. Maybe the accusations of modern-day Windies are a bit, ahem, overblown?

In 2006, ANR issued its “Draft guidelines for the Review and Evaluation of Potential Natural Resource Impacts from Utility-Scale Wind Energy Facilities.” It’s a detailed rundown of the policies and procedures that should be followed in considering large wind projects. It addresses “aesthetics, historic sites, air and water purity, the natural environment and the public health and safety.”:

It outlines necessary consideration of natural features, wildlife habitats, monitoring of stormwater runoff and effects on wetlands and streams. And it outlines needed steps in decommissioning old turbines, including removal of above ground equipment and turbine foundations, and restoring sites and access routes to a “natural” condition.”

Recent years have seen numerous Public Service Board dockets on proposed wind farms. These dockets are lengthy and detailed, and consider all the issues outlined above. Some proposals were amended; some were eventually approved; and at least one was rejected. (Photo: Lowell wind turbines.)

The docket numbers, for those wishing to wade through endless pages of documentation, testimony and reports, are: 6911 (East Mountain Wind, rejected), 7156 (Sheffield), 7250 (Deerfield), 7508 (Georgia Mt.), and 7628 (Lowell). Plus, going back to 1996, Docket 5823 (original Searsburg project).

Anyone who thinks there’s a “mad rush” to build wind turbines should take a look at these dockets. The process is thorough, inclusive, and painstaking. It’s the opposite of rushed. All factors are considered.  

In short, the state has built a well-functioning process for considering utility-scale wind proposals. The process has worked very well. The only way you could conclude otherwise is out of a complete, total, blind opposition to any large-scale wind projects in Vermont.  

Well, well, what tidings does the Mitchell Family Organ (South) bring this fine late winter morning?

It seems that Jeff Wennberg’s in line for a new full-time gig: Mayor Chris Louras has nominated him to be Commissioner of Public Works for the City of Rutland. Real job, pays 80K per year.

Yes, this is the same Wennberg who stepped into Darcie Johnston’s ballet slippers at Vermonters for Health Care Freedom, becoming Vermont’s highest-profile opponent of health care reform. There hasn’t been any announcement from VHCF yet, probably because Wennberg has to be confirmed by the Aldermen. But he’s already talking about that job in the past tense:

He most recently served as executive director of Vermonters for Health Care Freedom. Wennberg said he was interested in getting back into public service and to management, which he described as “applied politics.”

“There’s a great deal of satisfaction that I have missed in these last five years from being able to not just influence decisions, but make them,” he said.

And I bet you dollars to gluten-free donuts I know what comes next: THE RETURN OF DARCIE!!!!!  

It’s been a few months since Our Beloved Hack stopped receiving bloated paychecks from the doomed Randy Brock campaign (well, it was doomed from the moment he hired Darcie). She’s gotta find herself another gravy train sometime, no?

This is sheer guesswork on my part. But if Intrade were still in business, and they could be bothered setting odds on the inbred world of Vermont conservatism, I’d be bellying up to the virtual window and placing a hefty wager on Darcie Johnston going back to VHCF.

And bringing all her (cough) political genius to the task of derailing Gov. Shumlin’s reform plan with her tasty blend of red-baiting alarmism and Randian free-marketeering.

There’s another whole aspect to this story, given prominence in the Herald’s account: the intense cronyism of Rutland politics:

With Wennberg’s successor in the mayor’s office, John Cassarino, rejoining to the Board of Aldermen on Monday, Wennberg’s confirmation would mean that every living former mayor of Rutland is involved with City Hall in some official capacity.

I’m absolutely clueless regarding the political tides of Jack City (well, Burlington is the Queen City, and Rutland’s the next-biggest town in Vermont, right?), but the Herald lays out a pretty convincing picture of intensive backroom deal-making. There is, after all, an incumbent DPW Commissioner, Evan Pilachowski. He used to be city engineer, a position that’s currently vacant. To hear Louras tell it, the demotion (and concomitant skid-greasing for Wennberg) is all Pilachowski’s idea.

Uh-huh.

Well, I can only hope that Rutland will continue its long-odds comeback in spite of the leadership skills of Jeff Wennberg and (Treasurer) Wendy Wilton. Maybe Louras can find a gig for Rob Roper while he’s at it.  

To hear its opponents tell it, utility-scale wind in Vermont is a “mad rush” by people “obsessed,” a process driven by the Big Wind money machine and threatening to bulldoze “time-honored Vermont traditions” as well as our ridgelines. In a recent opinion piece, previously dissected in this space, Sen. Joe Benning charged that Vermont’s energy policy is being “driven by greedy, mostly out-of-state corporate developers.”

But when you look at the actual record, you see a far different picture. Vermont has developed its renewable energy policy slowly, carefully, openly, over the course of many years. Virtually all of the relevant legislation passed by lopsided majorities (on voice votes, more often than not) with tripartisan support. The process has been driven, not by big corporations, but by our elected officials. Including Joe Benning himself, as it happens. The process has consistently given preference to small, home- and community-based renewables. In fact, while Vermont has consistently offered financial incentives for small projects, it has never done so for large-scale renewables.

This diary is the first of a two-part series exploring the history of our renewable energy policy, focusing on the legislative record. Part two, coming soon, will look at the regulatory process.

_________________________________________

The story begins around the turn of the century. In 1998, the Legislature approved the first net metering program, allowing Vermonters with small renewable power sources (usually solar panels) to sell their excess electricity to their utility. The program was expanded by legislation adopted in 2000 and 2002.

In 2003, lawmakers passed a bill authorizing renewable pricing programs, which allowed consumers to invest in renewable energy projects. It also took the first step toward creation of a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) which would mandate that every utility provide at least a minimum percentage of renewable power. And the bill created an incentive program for small-scale renewable systems in homes and businesses.  

Baby steps to be sure, but they illustrate two important facts about Vermont’s path to a renewable energy policy: The process was very deliberate and inclusive, and the programs were designed with individual- and community-scale projects at the forefront.  

2005: Lawmakers passed Act 61, the first legislation to establish renewable energy standards, and the SPEED (Sustainably Priced Energy Enterprise Development) program to encourage in-state development of renewable electricity. It also required power providers to add enough renewable sources to fulfill increased demand between 2005 and 2012. The bill passed the Senate on a voice vote, and the House by a 94-35 margin.  

The SPEED program has come under attack for allowing utilities to trade renewable-energy credits to other states. This is true, but SPEED was designed to surmount the chicken-or-egg problem with renewables: the upfront investment is relatively large, making renewables uncompetitive at the beginning. Over time, their costs drop dramatically because, well, they’re renewable: no need to keep on buying fuel. SPEED provided a market-based solution to the initial-investment problem by allowing utilities to sell long-term contracts for renewable power. Without SPEED, adoption of renewables in Vermont would have been much, much slower.

The SPEED program is set to expire in 2017. By then, the renewables market will be well established and we should be able to stop selling renewable credits.

Act 61 also required utilities to submit ten-year plans for meeting power transmission needs, with an eye to (whenever possible) limiting new transmission in favor of “nontransmission alternatives” such as locally sourced power. And the Department of Public Service was required to hold hearings on new transmission proposals in each affected community.

Finally, the bill ordered the DPS to create a process involving the public in the development and siting of proposed wind farms.

2006. Without dissent, the Legislature approved Act 168, establishing greenhouse gas reduction goals. They were modest targets, to be sure, but it was another incremental step along the way. The goals were set against the 1990 baseline, and sought a 25% reduction by January 2012, 50% by 2028, and 75% by 2050.

The bill also required creation of a climate change action plan, and mandated that all state agencies consider greenhouse gas emissions in their decision making processes.

Also in 2006, the Legislature took another step in fostering public participation and local energy by adopting Act 208 without dissent. It required creation of a process for engaging the public in power planning issues, and helping communities develop local energy opportunities and climate change action plans.

(And in November 2006, one Robert Hartwell was elected to the State Senate. The record shows that he voted for every piece of renewable energy legislation that passed the Senate from then on — or, at least, he did not cast any “No” votes. That includes all the bills that encouraged wind development.)

2008: By overwhelming margins, the Legislature adopted Act 92, which exempted farm- based energy projects from the Act 250 process.  It also set a goal of producing 25% of Vermont’s energy from in-state renewables by the year 2025. And it revised the net metering law, raising the existing cap on non-farm systems to 150 kW.

There were numerous other provisions in the bill, but one I find especially worth noting: Act 92 set a state goal that 20% of total statewide electric retail sales would come from SPEED (renewable) resources by July 2017, when the legislation enacting SPEED is due to expire.

2009: The Vermont Energy Act of 2009 (Act 45), which did a whole lot of stuff. Most notably, it amended the SPEED program by ordering the Public Service Board to issue “standard offer” prices for renewable energy plants in Vermont. This encouraged development of renewable power by establishing default prices that allow renewable-power developers to recover their costs plus a decent rate of return. The standard offer applies only two projects 2.2 megawatts or smaller; it’s another way in which Vermont’s renewables policy has been tilted toward small, local projects. (Vermont does not offer, and has never offered, financial incentives for large renewable energy projects.)

Of all the bills in this list, Act 45 was the only one that failed to attract broad tripartisan support. The House approved it 88-44, and the Senate passed it by 16-10. The bulk of the “No” votes came from Republicans; Governor Jim Douglas allowed the bill to become law without his signature. He believed that the state already had sufficient incentives for renewables, and he was concerned that the bill might raise electricity prices.

Act 45 also allowed “appropriate” wind turbine development on state lands. This was not, apparently, a source of controversy at the time.

Another section of the bill created self-managed energy efficiency programs for large industrial ratepayers. Those companies were required to invest in efficiency, verify energy savings, and report their results annually to the state.

There was also a section that barred local governments from adopting any laws or ordinances forbidding the use of solar panels, clotheslines, or other small renewable energy projects.

2010: On voice votes, the House and Senate adopted Act 159, which established simplified procedures for permitting of small renewable energy projects and connecting them to the power grid. It also corrected a problem with the market for farm methane plants, by bringing older plants into the “standard offer” program.

Act 159 also ordered the Public Service Board to write a report by October 2011 on the potential development of an RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard) program to replace, or to be added to, the SPEED program. Critics of SPEED have called for a switch to RPS, which would require electric retailers to maintain a minimum quantity of renewable power in their own portfolios, rather than selling the credits outside the state.

Another provision transfers jurisdiction over appeals of renewable-energy permits from the environmental court to the Public Service Board. It also requires the PSB to abide by the processes and precedents of the environmental court.

November 2010: Prominent anti-wind Senators Peter Galbraith and Joe Benning are elected. During the ensuing biennium, neither will vote against three major pieces of energy legislation. One of the three established much tougher targets for renewable energy generation in Vermont — targets that would be almost impossible to meet without some adoption of utility-scale wind.

Which brings us to Act 47, The Vermont Energy Act of 2011. It expanded the net metering program, allowing for the connection of more small and individual systems. There were numerous other provisions, most of them relatively minor.

Two energy bills were adopted in 2012, both on voice votes.

Act 125 again expanded the net metering program with an eye toward home solar systems. It also ordered the Department of Public Service to report on the net metering program and recommend ways to expand it.

Act 170, the Vermont Energy Act of 2012, set new goals for adoption of renewable energy: 55% of each utility’s energy should come from renewable sources by 2017, and 75% by 2032. The Act also amended the state’s renewable energy goals to encourage distributed generation and a diversity in size and technology, fostering a broader base of renewable energy sources. It expanded the standard offer program, allowing favorable rates for renewable energy projects.

The Act also mandates biennial reports from the Public Service Board on the SPEED and standard offer programs, which should include comparison of Vermont’s electric rates with those of nearby states. The Act had included establishment of RPS’s (renewable portfolio standards), but the Senate stripped out that requirement near the end of the session. Instead, the bill mandated further study of RPS.

And the Act requires the Department of Public Service to report on progress toward the DPS’ recommended goal that by 2050, 90% of all energy consumed in Vermont be renewable energy. This includes not only electricity, but also heating and transportation.

And among its many other provisions, it enacted a smart-metering program and allowed customers to opt out of the program without penalty.

Conclusion. Vermont’s progress on expanding renewables and fighting climate change hasn’t always done the right thing. I would argue that it’s been too slow and too timid, given the magnitude of the threat we face. But when reviewing the legislative record, it’s clear that the process has been deliberate and inclusive, and that it has favored small-scale generation and discouraged long-distance transmission.

A review of Vermont’s recent regulatory history reveals the same thing: a long, exhaustive consideration of all the issues that has encouraged the participation of all concerned parties. Not a perfect process, but definitely not the “mad rush” depicted in anti-wind rhetoric. I’ll post a diary on that regulatory history in the near future.  

Well, that’s not quite true. The three freakin’ geniuses who birthed the thing (Sens. Bob Hartwell, Peter “The Slummin’ Solon” Galbraith, and Joe Benning) are inordinately proud of it. But lots of other folks are lining up against it.

S.30, for those just tuning in, is the revised wind-moratorium bill, Now With 100% Less Moratorium, that passed the Senate Natural Resources Committee last week amid a flurry of smug back-patting by Messrs. Hartwell and Galbraith. It would require Act 250 review (in addition to the existing Public Service Board process) for any new energy project over 500 kilowatts. It’s aimed at utility-scale wind, but it would also apply to other types of energy, making it almost impossible to increase Vermont’s renewables portfolio.

The ardent Windies don’t like the new S.30 because it doesn’t include the moratorium. Today, a broad coalition of Vermont businesses, and most every major environmental group in the state, announced their opposition because they want to promote renewables as a source of cleaner energy and jobs.

First, the businesses. They come from all areas of endeavor, and range in size from Vermont-large (Ben and Jerry’s, NRG Systems, Washington Electric Co-op) to community small (Green Mountain Dairy Farm, Moose Mountain Forestry). They assert that S.30 would “upend decades of well-planned statewide energy permitting, stifle jobs and restrict access to affordable, clean energy,” and “take Vermont backwards in meeting the goals of our state’s Comprehensive Energy Plan and addressing climate change.”

As for the enviros, they urge a “No” vote when the bill comes to the full Senate, which could happen as soon as next week.  

Christopher Kilian of the Conservation Law Foundation says that S.30 would make it harder to build renewables than nuclear, coal, or large-scale hydro. Charles McKenna of the Sierra Club Vermont says the continually increasing evidence for climate change underscores the urgency of adopting renewable sources.

Antinuclear groups Citizens Awareness Network and Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Alliance say promoting renewables — including utility-scale projects — is the only way to wean ourselves from nukes and fossil fuels.

The groups note that “S.30 calls for a study of all potentially negative impacts of wind energy, while failing to call for any evaluation of far more dangerous and polluting energy sources.”

The groups signing the news release include: VPIRT, Conservation Law Foundation, 350Vermont, Sierra Club Vermont, Vermont Natural Resources Council, Citizens Awareness Network, National Wildlife Federation (Northeast), and Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Alliance.

It must be a nice feeling, when you’re a public-interest lobbyist, to know that you’ve helped shape an important piece of legislation.

That happy place is where Paul Burns, head of VPIRG, found himself this afternoon. The previous day, according to Dave Gram of the Associated Press, Burns had raised a fuss over S.82, a campaign finance reform bill that would have significantly raised contribution limits for statewide candidates. His opposition, as Gram tells it, led the Senate Government Operations Committee to take a 24-hour timeout.

And today, after a last-minute powwow with Senate President Pro Tem John Campbeil, the committee lowered the contribution limits and passed the legislation. Afterward, Burns called the new version “quite a substantial improvement.”  

Most of S.82 was completely uncontroversial. It would require more frequent campaign finance reports (details below), and move the state by 2015 to electronic reporting that feeds into a searchable database — a key reform for transparency.  And it appropriates $100,000 as a “down payment” on the needed technology, which will be something of a relief to Secretary of State Jim Condos.

The bill would also establish a new law for Super PACs that could be dubbed “The Broughton Rule”: If a Super PAC gets more than 25% of its money from a single source (individual or corporate), that source must be identified in all of its materials. It’s clearly aimed at Lenore Broughton’s million-dollar bankrolling of Vermonters First.

(Burns had pressed for requiring a photo of such donors, which would have particularly infuriated the camera-shy Broughon, but the committee demurred.)

A bit of behind-the-scenes drama preceded the committee’s final vote.

As the panel continued to tussle over contribution limits,  two of its Democratic members (Eldred French and committee chair Jeannette White) were called into Campbell’s office for a last-minute confab. They emerged with leadership’s agreement on lower contribution limits; low enough to gain Burns’ support. The panel’s vote was unanimous, although Independent Anthony Pollina expressed reservations and may vote “No” on the Senate floor.

The final version actually lowers contribution limits for legislative candidates. Currently, any candidate cannot receive more than $2,000 from a single source, whether individual, corporate, or PAC. Under S.82, the limit would rise to $3,000 for statewide candidates; drop to $1,500 for State Senate hopefuls; and drop to $750 for candidates for the state House or local offices.

Political parties could contribute more to a candidate’s campaign: $85,000 for a statewide candidate, $6,000 for State Senate, and $3,000 for a House or local candidate.

The new limit on single-source (individual, corporate, or PAC) donations to parties or PACs* is $3,000. Also, a single source cannot give more than $25,000 in aggregate contributions in an election cycle.

*Donations to Super PACs continue to be unlimited.

All these limits would be adjusted for inflation in future years.

As for the reporting requirements… Current law mandates only one report during an off-year, on July 15. The first report during an election year is due on July 15. After that, monthly reports are required through the end of the year.

Under S.82, quarterly reports would be required in off-years. During the first half of an election year, monthly reports would be required. And from July 15 through November, reports would be due every two weeks. As with current law, if a candidate raises or spends less than $500, no reporting is required.

All in all, I agree with Burns’ assessment. This is a good bill; about as good as it can be in a post-Citizens United landscape. I’m most interested in the increased reporting requirements and the searchable databases. And since all three parties have expressed support for the bill, I’m hopeful it will continue to move through the Legislature.  

For the first time in a while, Governor Shumlin’s weekly news conference was held indoors. And he allowed quite a bit of time for the assembled press corps to pepper him with questions, and receive in return the same ol’ same ol’ pat answers. It’s kinda like going to the gym; we’re the Nautilus machines, and the Governor is practicing his verbal footwork.

First, he had a nice little announcement that’ll get more TV time than word count: an expansion of the Workplace Community Supported Agriculture Program, which will allow state employees to enroll in farm CSAs and pick up their produce at a network of state offices. It’s an incremental step toward boosting the farm economy and providing greater access to local food, and Ag Secretary Chuck Ross hopes the state’s program will inspire other employers to follow suit. (Photo: Shumlin making a point about local food and growing jobs and prosperity for all Vermonters.)

But most of the time was spent in a thrust-and-parry over various legislative debates, particularly concerning Shumlin initiatives that have encountered resistance. He counseled patience with the legislative process — “The Governor proposes, the Legislature responds” — and reiterated his belief in his own budget proposal*, while acknowledging that he will have to make compromises.

*He made so many laudatory references to “our package” that, if I was as devoted to snark as some people think I am, I’d be writing this entire post as Beavis and Butthead.

“Judge us by what we sign at the end of the session. This is tough stuff. The Legislature is doing good work. They’re asking the right questions. And in the end, I would expect that, like most Governors, I will get some of what I want and they’ll get some of what they want.”

There was one notable exception to his phlegmatic attitude toward the dirty, greasy work of sausage mak, er, that is, lawmaking.  

That was the surprise “No” vote in the Senate Economic Development Committee on the child-care unionization bill. And in particular, the extremely surprising (and decisive) “No” vote by one of the bill’s sponsors, Republican Bill Doyle.

Shumlin was asked if he’d talked with Senator Doyle before Tuesday’s vote.

“No. I certainly didn’t, and obviously I was disappointed that the bill didn’t come out of committee. I’m a big believer in the passage of that bill, and I’ve never discussed it with Senator Doyle. Frankly, because he was a sponsor of the bill, I didn’t think there was any question about his support. I was caught by surprise, as I think were many people who support the bill.”

And then he made a quick return to his Buddha-like aura of tranquility by reminding us that “it’s not over for this bill.”

Other than that, an uneventful light workout with the Gov. Next time, having given us one nice indoor event, he’ll probably hold his weekly presser in a wind tunnel somewhere.  

Given the Burlington Free Press’ wall-to-wall coverage of Pope Benedict’s retirement, it’s no surprise that today’s front page is given over to a huge picture of POPE FRANCIS in his first public appearance wearing the White Beanie. Nor is it surprising that three SIX* full interior pages are given over to Francismania.

*Yes, six.

Not surprising, but still a bit puzzling.

In recent years, the Freeploid has focused its efforts (and its front page) on local news. (Indeed, my sense is that the ‘Loid has trimmed its State House coverage in favor of the Burlington area.) Rarely does a national story take precedence over all else.

Except for this Pope stuff. That gets the full-court press, if you’ll pardon the weak pun.  

Of course, most of the “in-depth” coverage is the same stuff you could read in USA TODAY or any other Gannett property. (Including a brief, whitewashy item on the new Pope’s name, discussed below.)

The only “local” story was a piece entitled “Vermonters Welcome the New Pope,” as if there was some universal outburst of joy and celebration echoing from the mountaintops: the hills are alive with the sound of habemus papam…

The article recounts a celebratory mass led by Vermont Bishop Salvatore Matano last night. A mass attended by a huge, raucous crowd of Vermont Catholics —

Er, what’s that?

The ceremony, at which Matano served as principal celebrant, drew about 60 faithful…

Sixty?

Ahem.

Tell me again why the Freeploid is spending all this time, energy, and newsprint on the papacy. Hoping to boost newsstand sales by a few dozen?

____________________

Postscript. The Freeploid’s breathless popery includes a short background piece on the name “Francis.” It connects the simple lifestyle of the new Pontiff with the beloved St. Francis of Assisi, “who is identified with peace, poverty and a simple lifestyle.”

Well, that’s half the story.

The new Pope is the first Jesuit to hold the church’s highest office. And there’s another famous Francis in Catholic history: Francis Xavier, co-founder of the Jesuit order. This other Francis, unmentioned in the Freeploid, spent his life bringing Catholicism to distant parts of the globe. (He died while on a mission in southeast Asia.) And the order he founded, the Jesuits, have been called “God’s Marines” for their aggressive evangelization and willingness to go anywhere and live in complete austerity if need be.

I think it’s fair to say that the new Pope is inspired by both famous Francises. And that, in fact, there’s a steel fist inside that velvet glove. But you didn’t read that in the Freeploid.  

Hey, remember Tom Salmon? The guy who could hardly be bothered to feign interest in his job as State Auditor? Who always seemed to be looking for something else to do?

Well, he’s still at it.

Salmon, who claimed to have numerous high-ticket job offers when he left office in January, wound up taking a less-than-high-ticket job with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.

You’ll never guess what comes next.

Oh wait, you will. Take it away, Paul Heintz:

…after just one month on the job, the State House News Service reported Wednesday, Salmon left to pursue another gig with the federal government.

… “Despite making a commitment to stay on, he has taken that position and moved on,” Massachusetts Inspector General Glenn Cunha said Wednesday at a meeting of the Inspector General’s Council.

… [The Inspector General’s spokesman Jack] Meyers said the IG’s office was surprised Salmon so quickly departed what was supposed to be a six-year appointment.

“You know, there had been a pretty involved search process to select the candidate,” Meyers said. “There was an expectation that he’d be here for a while.”

Bwahahahahaha.

Heintz goes on to recount Salmon’s Vermont history of serial enthusiasms: his party switch, his dalliance with a U.S. Senate candidacy, and his on-again, off-again run for re-election as Auditor.

Oh, and about that “high-ticket” job? Salmon claimed to have “a half dozen potential jobs,” and described himself as having “a skill set that probably can earn between $160,000 and $220,000 reasonably.”

Jack Meyers didn’t know Salmon’s MDOT salary, but his successor will earn $108,000.

For those who have trouble with numbers, that’s way, way below Salmon’s predicted pay grade.