ALTHOUGH WE debated river buffer zones, changes in the date for primaries, and a $38 million savings plan for part of the state budget, it was probably Vermont Yankee that was most on legislators’ minds last week.

Vermont Yankee

There is obviously great concern over the loss of credibility of its management and the increasing levels of tritium leaking from an unknown location in underground pipes.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has jurisdiction over plant safety, has said it sees no need yet to act. Our state Health Department can only intervene if the tritium exceeds the established levels for health risks, which has not yet occurred.

There is now increasing doubt about approving the 20-year operating license extension that Yankee’s owner (Entergy) is seeking. In a news media poll last week, almost half of Vermonters said it should not be relicensed. The rest were either in support or unsure.

Usually, that decision is made in combination by the NRC, regarding safety, and the Public Service Board, which rules on whether utility proposals present a reliable power source and are in the best interests of Vermont.

Six years ago, Entergy received permission to store spent fuel rods on its property until the federal government meets its long-delayed commitment to create a waste site. In exchange, it agreed to let the Legislature decide whether to allow the Public Service Board to review the relicensing application.

Vermont now sits in a conundrum. In the most optimistic scenario, it would be five to ten years before we could develop enough “green” renewable energy sources to replace what we get from Yankee. That assumes the opponents of wind power (not in my back yard) and expanded hydro (not damaging my fishing and scenery) come in line.

In the interim, we would have to turn to reliance on power produced by coal, oil, or gas, with the carbon footprint/ global warming we are trying to avoid.

There’s another hitch. Just two years after the end of Yankee’s current license, our contract with Hydro-Quebec – the second third of Vermont’s current energy portfolio – expires.

Assuming they want to renew instead of using the power themselves, Hydro- Quebec must be salivating up at the border, watching Vermont Yankee shoot itself in the foot. Its bargaining power with us for new contract rates will skyrocket if Yankee closes.

As of this writing, the state Senate has scheduled a vote for Wednesday on whether to allow the Public Service Board to weigh the evidence, pro and con, on Yankee’s relicensing. It can hardly be a “yes” right now, in the midst of a leak that is growing worse by the day.

River Corridor (Buffer)

Management

This bill, if it passes the Senate, will give incentives to towns that wish to create buffer zones along waterways, improving water quality and potentially reducing flooding.

I voted “no.” It seems inconceivable to me that we would be expanding any programs, no matter how beneficial, when we are struggling with how to cut enough of the supports to the elderly, those with disabilities, to education, and to health care to fill a $150 million budget gap.

I made a motion to send the bill to the Appropriations Committee, so that at least the implications regarding state staff work load could be considered alongside other pressures. It failed along direct party lines, 49-95.

Date for Primary Elections

The date for primary elections will switch to the last week in August, instead of in September, if the governor signs the bill now passed by both houses of the legislature.

The intent, as directed by Congress, is to allow adequate time to prepare general election ballots to get to and from overseas voters, most particularly our military.

Changing the date, however, places the primary at a time when people are still in summer vacation mode, and does it in the middle of a campaign that is already well underway.

Congress allows states to ask for an exemption if it comes up with another way to reach the same goal. Rep. Tom Koch of Barre presented evidence on the floor that with our advances in electronic communications, it would cost under $10,000 to create a secure, email ballot. Military leadership had testified in committee that this would be a preferred approach.

I supported his amendment, but it failed, again on party lines. Without that option, I voted for the change in date as the only other alternative to ensure overseas voter access.

A last minute amendment added a new requirement that independents and members of minor parties without primaries must file their petitions to be on the general election ballot at the same time that established parties must file their petitions to be on their own primary ballots.

But it’s contrary to the fundamental concept of a primary, which is for a specific party to choose who it wants to select as its candidate for the general election. Anyone running in a primary would love to know in advance who else might run against him or her in the general election, but that doesn’t make it fair.

The amendment passed; I was among a small number who voted “no.”

The Savings Game

It came down to only three people who voted against the ambitious “Challenges for Change” under which state government is expected to save $38 million through efficiency and restructuring, providing better outcomes with less money.

The administration will be due back in four weeks with the details of how it will meet the goals we set out in the bill, and save the pre-established amount of money.

There are good elements for long term planning in the bill, but it will end up hiding how we balance a major part of the budget. There is no magic wand for this job.

This was a deal agreed upon by legislative leadership and the governor in advance, and we were all supposed to obey the marching orders.

I heard dozens of legislators express frustration for weeks in advance about what a fiction this process was.

“That was brave of you to vote ‘no,’” one of my peers said afterwards.

But she – and all but myself and two others – voted “yes.”

Committee Work

The Commissioner of the Department of Mental Health reported to six Senate and House committees that it now recognizes that the state is going to have to come up with the cash to build replacement facilities for the Vermont State Hospital.

It will cost at least $61 million, which we don’t have, so the administration proposes that if Congress decides to extend Medicaid bailout funds to the states (no certainty yet), and if we don’t use it for health care support, we can use that money for construction.

The administration said there is no other way that it can be done.

There is another way of saying that: If Congress doesn’t extend the extra money that we are hoping for, we aren’t going to do it.

We’ll just abdicate our responsibility to provide a safe hospital for the Vermonters in our care, and keep losing $11 million (and growing) per year of federal reimbursement because the hospital does not meet federal standards.

Thanks for staying in touch so that I can serve you better. You can reach me at 385- 6431 or at counterp@tds.net