Catching up - Renewable Energy & Landscape; Wind Turbine Noise

It appears that I have been remiss in updating my website with articles I wrote for the Charlotte News over the summer. The two articles below were published as commentaries rather than Legislative Reports.  Read on.

Report from the Legislature
-- Rep. Mike Yantachka

Blowing in the Autumn Wind

Although the legislature is not in session, many legislators serve on special committees that meet between sessions. The Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules (LCAR) is one such committee, and it's been keeping me busy this summer. LCAR consists of four Senators and four Representatives and is responsible for reviewing rules proposed by agencies of the executive branch of state government. Rules spell out the process by which an agency administers laws. Examples include the health standards of hotel accommodations, licensing of professionals, and standards for fuel oil tanks in our homes. It is LCAR's job to review the rules to ensure that

(1) the rule is not arbitrary,
(2) the rule is within the authority delegated to the agency,
(3) the rule is not contrary to the intent of the legislature,
(4) the agency provided an opportunity for maximizing public input,
(5) the rule is written in a satisfactory style, and
(6) the rule is accompanied by an adequate economic impact statement.

While many rules are fairly straightforward, others generate a substantial amount of contention and involve lots of analysis, testimony, and legalistic considerations. LCAR is not a policy-making committee and can only object to a rule or a portion of a rule if it violates one of the criteria listed above. Some rules require more than one meeting to pass muster, and LCAR can point out shortcomings and ask for revisions.

One of the most complex rules we had to consider is the one dealing with limits on noise produced by wind turbines. This rule came before LCAR in May from the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) with close to a thousand pages of comments both pro and con and wasn't adopted until this week, after several LCAR objections to certain elements on the basis of being arbitrary or contrary to legislative intent. The objections focused on a setback, the maximum sound levels for nighttime and daytime, sound propagation modeling, and post-construction noise monitoring. I apologize at this point for the following very technical explanation of our consideration of this rule.

The PUC was tasked by the legislature in 2016 with determining maximum allowable noise levels near residences to safeguard public health. This legislation was passed in response to complaints by some residents living near existing utility-scale wind facilities. The PUC examined a variety of studies and heard testimony from numerous proponents, opponents, environmentalists, and developers. One provision required a wind turbine to be located no closer than ten times its height to the nearest residence, nearly a mile in the case of a utility-scale turbine. In addition, based on a 30 decibel indoor World Health Organization criterion for undisturbed sleep and an assumption that sound levels would attenuate, i.e. diminish, by 10 – 15 decibels from the exterior of a residence to the interior, the PUC set the nighttime limit to a more conservative 39 decibels measured 100 feet from a residence. They also assumed that using a Noise Reduction Operation (NRO) mode, turbine noise could be reduced by 3 decibels, and therefore set the daytime limit to 42 decibels. To obtain a Certificate of Public Good (CPG), a developer would be required to model the sound propagation using a standard acoustic model based on the location of every proposed turbine and existing residence using the maximum output noise level of the turbines. If the CPG were granted and the turbines built, the developer would then have to conduct measurements of the turbine sound filtering out ambient, i.e. background, sounds according to a specific protocol. Up to 200 measurements per second would be taken over several hours both during the day and at night and then analyzed and reported to the PUC periodically. You can imagine the detail that LCAR had to deal with in evaluating whether the rules as proposed satisfied the criteria above.

In objecting to the ten times height setback rule, the majority of LCAR members agreed that a distance requirement was arbitrary because there is no direct correlation between distance and sound levels. The sound levels in general decrease with distance, but the amount of decrease depends on topography, atmospheric conditions, temperature and season. In setting sound level limits, the committee agreed that decibel levels at a residence were an appropriate standard, but not distance. Setbacks are appropriate for safety and other considerations, but not for sound levels, which is what this rule deals with.

The sound level limits themselves were considered to be somewhat arbitrary in that there were various studies that specified different attenuation estimates from outside to inside. Furthermore, the most conservative values were used by the PUC, and the estimated uncertainty in both the modeling algorithm and the manufacturer's specifications would have to be added to the model results. Environmental groups asserted that the rules would effectively preclude utility-scale wind development in Vermont. That result would be contrary to the intent of the legislature which recognizes in statute that large wind generation is an effective and competitive source of renewable energy.

Other objections were raised because the rules were not clear as to why the monitoring data had to be so granular (200 data points/second) and what constituted a violation of the sound level limits. The PUC responded to LCAR's objections with modification to the rules to clarify modeling and monitoring protocols as well as to remove the setback requirement which they agreed was redundant with the sound limits. The use of the NRO mode to model nighttime levels was allowed, and the modeling and manufacturer uncertainties will be used as guidance rather than as a penalty for the modeling results. The monitoring measurements will be done in 1 second intervals to reduce the amount of data which will be averaged over 2 hours of data to determine actual noise levels. With these changes to the rule, LCAR voted to approve them.

Unfortunately, the conservative application of the nine decibel exterior-interior attenuation was not changed. However, since enough of the conservative assumptions were mitigated, and since the PUC asserted that the rule would not preclude utility-scale wind projects in Vermont, I felt that the rule met the criteria for approval and voted in the affirmative.

As always, feel free to contact me anytime. I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email ( 

-- Rep. Mike Yantachka

Renewable Energy In Our Working Landscape

I was disappointed to read about the Public Utility Commission's denial of a Certificate of Public Good (CPG) for the proposed solar array off Route 7 near Mount Philo. Viewed from the western overlook of Mount Philo, the area covered by the solar array would look no larger than a postage stamp in the expanse. While I understand the desire to maintain the magnificent views of the Champlain Valley from the park's overlooks, I question our inability to accept renewable energy infrastructure as part of Vermont’s working landscape. Why is it that we accept certain man-made structures such as barns, silos, inns, etc., as acceptable and others such as a solar array as blights on the landscape? If the landowner were to erect a number of hoop houses covering the same area for growing plants, the visual effect would be about the same but probably would not elicit a peep from the public.

I think a lot of this attitude has to do with what we're used to seeing. How often do we notice the utility poles that line our roadways? We may not like how a gas station convenience store along Route 7 looks, but we are willing to accept it. These structures could be considered unsightly, but we don't object to them because we see them as being necessary for providing the services we value.

The two super-storms of Harvey and Irma, whose power was magnified by the warming oceans, are the most recent extreme effects of climate change. There is no denying that climate change is being caused by the exponential increase in our use of fossil fuels over the last 150 years. Many people choose to take actions to mitigate their own carbon footprint, such as improving the energy efficiency of their homes, installing solar panels or small wind turbines for household use, driving an electric vehicle (EV) or using alternative transportation. While these individual actions help, they have a limited effect even when taken cumulatively because they are often unavailable to the majority of people due to factors such as income, availability, location, or circumstance. For example, it doesn't make sense for a renter to install solar panels or a heat pump in their unit. Likewise, landlords don't have the incentive because renters are generally responsible for their own utility bills. As a result, to achieve the renewable energy goals we desire, there have to be societal efforts to provide opportunities for those who are otherwise shut out of the renewable energy economy. Climate change is a global problem with society-wide consequences, and it will take society-wide efforts to address it.

This is where large scale solar and wind power can help. Currently 55% of our electricity comes from renewable sources. About 25% of Vermont's electrical energy comes from hydro power, 20% from biomass, 8% from wind and about 2% from solar. Vermont has a statutory goal of reaching 75% renewable electric energy by 2032. Our utilities are required to reach this goal by the Renewable Energy Standard Act (Act 56) of 2015. Achieving these goals will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve public health, create more high paying jobs that already make up 5% of our workforce, and improve the reliability of our electrical system through distributed generation. While solar net metering and wind are currently a small part of our energy mix, they are the fastest growing segment of our renewable energy economy.

However, there seems to be a disconnect between our desire to achieve these goals and our acceptance of the necessary infrastructure. Just as we have become used to seeing a variety of alterations to our landscape from buildings, roads, and utility poles, we need to start seeing solar arrays and wind towers as part of our working landscape too. They don’t have to be everywhere, but they need to be somewhere. A harvest of solar energy is just as useful and valuable as a harvest of corn, barley, hay or grapes. A line of wind turbines on a ridge brings as much or more to our lifestyle as the ski trails cut into a mountainside. To meet our current and future energy needs, only a small fraction of our landscape is required for this infrastructure. Kingdom Community Wind in Lowell, the largest wind farm in the state, occupies only 4 of Vermont’s 400 miles of ridgelines. Over time, I expect that we will get used to seeing these elements as part of the Vermont character. This needs to happen sooner than later.  

Legislative Report 6/24/2017 - Veto Session Summary

This report was written jointly by Vermont House Members, Jessica Brumsted, Bill Lippert, Terry Macaig, Jim McCullough, Kate Webb, and Mike Yantachka

The legislature met last week in a veto session to address the statewide budget and education property tax bills.  Although these bills are essential to fund state government and our schools, the Governor believed that the legislature had foregone an opportunity to garner savings resulting from statewide changes in health insurance coverage for school employees and vetoed them. The veto forced the legislature to go back into session to avoid a government shutdown.

By the time Senators and Representatives returned to the statehouse on June 21st, much negotiating had already taken place with the Speaker of the House Mitzi Johnson, Senate President Pro Tempore Tim Ashe, and  Governor Scott's representatives.  After negotiations stalled, Governor Scott joined the negotiations on the last day prior to the veto session. An agreement was reached and a new bill combining the budget and property tax language passed on a voice vote in both the House and the Senate. While no one was particularly happy with the result, no one felt essential values had been compromised.

So what does this mean? First, the statewide property tax rate for residential property tax payers will decrease by 2 cents as passed in May, while the nonresidential rate will remain at last year’s rate of $1.535.  Second, a greater share of the statewide sales tax will be used to offset the cost of education. Only minor technical changes were made to the budget which had originally passed the House and Senate with a single dissenting vote. This was the easy part.  

The challenge came in addressing the issue of health insurance for school employees. Democratic leadership believed that savings were already built into the new plans, and these savings were best accounted for at the local level.  In contrast, the Governor believed that more savings could be obtained if these policies were negotiated at the state rather than local level, identifying savings if all schools negotiated an 80-20 premium split with teachers paying $400 per person toward out-of-pocket costs.

The compromise reached by Democratic leaders and the Governor retains bargaining for the health insurance contracts at the local level, but withholds $13 million from schools for FY 18, thereby requiring schools to reduce spending accordingly, preferably through negotiations over health insurance benefits.  It requires each school district to achieve savings in health insurance in the amount that would have been saved in FY18 if Scott's 80/20 benefit plan had been implemented.  The savings will be measured by comparing the cost of the current insurance plans against the new plans that will start on January 1, 2018.  For districts that do not achieve those savings, the difference between the target costs and the actual costs will be deducted from state Education Fund payments to the district.  To ease the effect on property taxes, 65% of the deduction will be applied to FY18 payments and 35% to FY19 payments.  At the time of this writing, we do not have information on how the Champlain Valley School district will be affected.

The bill also creates a nine-member commission that will study whether the state should implement a statewide teacher health insurance benefit, a provision that was included in the vetoed property tax bill.  This panel will “determine whether and how to establish a single statewide health benefit plan for all teachers, administrators, and other employees of supervisory unions and school districts.” 

The compromise also mandates that all school contracts, other than those districts that have already settled their school contracts, will expire in 2019 so lawmakers can implement the recommendations of the commission. Contracts negotiated by July 1, 2017, will remain in effect as negotiated.  Districts currently in impasse on health insurance negotiations are provided an opportunity to reopen negotiations.

Despite the frustration expressed by many legislators that the bill had flaws, we recognized the hard work that went into achieving this compromise.  Speaker Johnson, President Pro Tem Ashe and the Governor issued the following joint statement:
“We are pleased to announce we have reached an agreement in principle on an education savings proposal that will take an important step to make Vermont more affordable. If passed by the full legislative body, this proposal will help the state achieve significant savings in the education fund and lower property tax rates. The agreement reached upholds the principles each of us committed to during the legislative session, building on areas of agreement and our shared goal to improve the lives of Vermonters. Importantly, it ensures that we will have a budget that does not raise taxes and fees, including property tax rates.”

Before adjournment the House and Senate passed nearly identical resolutions strongly opposing the announced U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement and recognizing Governor Phil Scott for enrolling Vermont in the US Climate Alliance.  We were all pleased to support this timely resolution.

Speaker of the House Mitzi Johnson on the 2017 Legislative Session

The June installment of the Chittenden County Democrats Show featured an interview with Speaker of the House Mitzi Johnson, who reflected on the 2017 legislative session so far. The legislature will gavel back into session next week for two days, June 21st and 22nd, for an override session on the Governor's budget veto. Host Bob Hooper and Speaker Johnson discussed several topics including the impasse between the legislature and Governor over teachers' health care benefits, the future of the Windsor prison, and potential impacts of proposed federal tax cuts. The interview can be seen here.

The Word in the House 5/24/2017 - End of Session Summary

As the 2017 legislative session ended shortly before midnight on Thursday, May 18, it was with a lot of pride and a lot of disappointment. The reason for the disappointment was because we would have to go back to Montpelier on June 21 for a veto session because Governor Scott declared that he will veto both the budget (H.518) and the education bill (H.509) because of the teachers’ health insurance issue. I’ve written extensively in the last few weeks about the standoff on this issue, so if the reader wants a recap of the last day as well as a timeline of what passed as negotiations, I refer you to my website/blog at What I will do instead here is write about some highlights of the session.

Ironically, the budget passed by the legislature on the last day achieved all the targets set by the Governor in his budget address in January. The budget does not depend on any new taxes or fees, and held to a 0.7% increase in state funds and a 1.3% increase in total funds, which include federal money. This is well below the revenue growth projections of 3.5% and reflects the steps taken in prior years to close the budget gap. While this budget originally passed both the House and Senate with only one dissenting vote, 48 House Republicans voted against it in support of the Governor’s objections on final passage.

Speaker of the House Mitzi Johnson

For several years, Vermont has been given a grade of “F” for lack of ethical accountability in all three branches of government from The Center for Public Integrity. This year, the House and Senate finally passed an ethics bill that requires disclosure of candidates’ and legislators’ income sources and prohibits legislators from becoming a paid lobbyist for one year after leaving office. Candidates for statewide office will have to disclose their individual income tax form 1040 with their confidential information redacted. These offices include the Governor, Lt. Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Auditor, and Attorney General. Candidates for the House and Senate will have to list each source of their income that exceeds $5000, but not income totals.

The legislature also passed significant legislation supporting civil and individual rights. Senate bill S.29 prohibits the creation of a registry based on personal characteristics and gives the Governor alone, in consultation with the Vermont Attorney General, authorization over agreements in which state and local law enforcement can assist federal authorities with immigration enforcement. Another bill, S.96, provides that journalists cannot be held in contempt for not disclosing their confidential sources. In House bill H.25, not yet passed by the Senate, sexual assault survivors are guaranteed the right to a forensic medical exam, and that the “rape kit” be sent to a lab within 72 hours, and to be notified of a DNA match, or when the kit is scheduled for destruction. Since identity theft has proliferated, the legislature passed H.111 to modernize Vermont’s system of issuing birth and death certificates. Requests for a certificate will be restricted to the person and close relatives, and a statewide registration system will be created as a central repository in the Secretary of State’s office, which will enable a request for a certificate to be filed at any town clerk’s office.

The legislature also helped working families. Low-income working Vermonters eligible for food assistance and Reach Up cash assistance will be able to save up to $9,000 for retirement or their children’s education without being penalized. This will help them earn more without being discouraged by loss of benefits. Pregnant employees also benefit from a bill (H.136) that requires employers to offer accommodations that allow the employee to continue working with a minimum of discomfort. According to AARP, there are around 100,000 Vermonters who do not have access to employer-sponsored retirement plans. Part of the economic development bill (S.135) establishes the Green Mountain Secure Retirement Plan, which will be available on a voluntary basis to employers with 50 or fewer employees who do not offer a retirement plan, and to self-employed persons. Employees will automatically be enrolled, but can opt out if they do not want to participate.

I encourage you to let me know your concerns and opinions. I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (

House Adjournment Recap 5/19/2017

The gavel came down shortly after midnight ending the 2017 session of the Vermont House pending a veto session in June and a possible callback in October.  The October date was set aside in case the passage of the federal budget later this year deals some major impacts to Vermont.  The last day was not without its hopes and tensions.  Thursday morning Speaker Mitzi Johnson and Senate Pro Tem received word that the Governor wanted to meet over the stalled teacher health insurance issue. 

The legislators presented the agreed upon language that they would vote on which included:
1) setting up a commission to study the implications and feasibility of having a statewide teachers health insurance program;
2) setting a statewide termination of teachers health insurance contracts that have not yet been negotiated to December 31, 2018;
3) exempting from that termination any contracts negotiated prior to July 1, 2017; 
4) exempting those negotiated afterward that fit the Governor's proposed 80%-20% premium split with a $400 deductible; and
5) passing legislation in 2018 that would reflect the results of the commission's study.

This proposal would honor the dozen contracts that have already been negotiated, encourage the adoption of the terms that the Governor says will achieve the $26M savings ($13M in FY18), and allow the legislature to properly examine, with everyone's input, over the course of a regular session the pros and cons of a standard statewide health insurance program for teachers. No agreement was reached.

In the afternoon, the three parties were joined by the Dean of the House, Alice Emmons, and the Dean of the Senate, Dick Mazza, the longest serving members of each body.  After hours of discussion focusing on the points everyone agreed on, the talks once again reached an impasse as the Governor insisted that the contracts had to be negotiated at the statewide level instead of between local teachers and boards.

At around 9:30PM the House received word that the House-Senate Conference Committee agreed on language for H.509, which was passed by the Senate 20-8. The House was now ready to vote on the language described above except for points 4 and 5. H.509 also set the education tax yields for FY18, which was the original purpose of the bill. The yields, how much $1 of the property tax will raise per student based on the statewide grandlist, determine the local education tax rates.  The higher the yield, the lower the tax rate needs to be.  For residential property tax payers not income sensitized, the yield will be $10,160.  For those eligible for a property tax adjustment, the yield is $11,990.  These yields result in an average homestead property tax rate of $1.505.  The nonresidential rate will be $1.555, down from $1.59. This measure passed on a vote of 84-54.

In his remarks to the House in closing the session, Governor Scott told us he would veto the budget because we did not agree to statewide teacher negotiations. So, we will be returning on June 21 to consider overriding his veto.  What will change between now and then, I don't know. As I stated in my vote explanation after voting for H.509,  "The right of employees to enter into collective bargaining with their employer is a right that was hard-fought and won over the last century and a half. It is a right that we should not throw away. My yes vote underscores my support for this sacred principle.”

At the same time the teachers' unions would do well to ensure that their demands are reasonable when they enter negotiations so as to avoid alienating the property taxpayers whose support they need in times like this. 

Impasse on Teachers' Health Insurance Plans

The Legislature reached an impasse in negotiations with Governor Scott on his plan to use $26 M in potential savings from the new VEHI health insurance plans for teachers.  After 12 days of negotiations with the Governor and his staff, the Governor was unwilling to compromise according to House Speaker Mitzi Johnson and Senate President Pro Tem Tim Ashe who held a joint news conference on /Wednesday, May 17th. The goalposts kept moving from one meeting to the next, according to Johnson. The Governor would not move from his position to short-circuit the collective bargaining process, so there was no point in continuing to negotiate.  The legislature will now convene a Committee of Conference between the House and Senate to come up with a joint proposal that will address the potential savings in a way that will preserve the bargaining process and allow the savings to reduce property taxes.  The collective bargaining process is a hard-fought and won right of workers to negotiate directly with their employer.  We should not allow Vermont to become a state which devalues this right.  I recommend reading the editorial by David Moats, editor of the Times Argus newspaper, which can be found at this website: 

Legislative report 5/17/2017 - Stuck in Session

As I write this late Friday afternoon on May 12th, I should be home in Charlotte. Instead, I am in a holding pattern in Montpelier. There are a number of bills that are still under negotiation, all of which deal in some way with money. The Budget cannot be passed until all the constituent parts are finalized. These parts include the capital bill that deals with the overhead required to run the state government, the fee bill that covers the expense of administering regulations and licenses, the transportation bill that maintains our transportation infrastructure, and the education tax bill that determines what the statewide property taxes will be. While the capital, fee and transportation bills, have already passed both the House and Senate, the education bill has become the sticking point over how to deal with the new health care plans being proposed for public school teachers.

The education tax bill, H.509, was close to being finalized until Governor Scott proposed his teachers' health insurance plan to capture an alleged $26M savings within days of adjournment. The fact that only $13M would apply to the FY18 budget, since the new insurance plans don't start until January 1, has not stopped him from repeating the $26M figure. The Governor insists that the only way the savings can be achieved is with negotiations between the administration and the statewide union. This runs counter to the right of workers, the teachers, to negotiate directly with their employer, the school board. With the backing of the Republican caucus, he has refused to compromise on this point. He also has proposed that only 30% of the savings should go for property tax reduction.

Meanwhile, the House and Senate have been working toward a way to realize the estimated savings while maintaining the integrity of the employer-employee relationship of teachers and school boards. The latest amendment passed by the Senate would require $13M to be saved in the second half of FY18 which would reduce the statewide homestead property tax by 3 cents. Based on the number of employees, each school district would be allocated a proportion of the savings which would be achieved by negotiations between the school board and its teachers, a process that is already taking place across the state, by the way. Any difference between what the district actually saves and the allocated amount would reduce the state's payment to the district. Since each action on a bill requires a 24 hour waiting period, the failure of the Governor to work with the legislature to find a solution guarantees that the session will run beyond the budgeted 18 weeks.

A couple of weeks ago the 2017 session seemed to be moving along nicely with no new taxes and a budget that got nearly unanimous support. Yet, here we are. Despite agreement on what could potentially be saved, the issue has boiled down to labor relations and how much should be applied to reducing property taxes. I hope that by the time you read this we'll have a solution and a budget that won't be vetoed.

I encourage you to let me know your concerns and opinions. I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (

Who wouldn't want to save $26 million? (Front Porch Forum Issue No. 2767 May 10, 2017 )

I submitted a commentary on this topic that will be published in The Citizen this week and on my website (  However, I would like to add a few more thoughts here for your consideration since I have received many emails on the subject.

Sound bites are very simplistic. "Save the taxpayers $26M!"  Very easy to say, but another saying that applies is that "the devil is in the details."  The Governor's proposal relates to a change happening to teacher health plans throughout the State. This change is not dependent upon, nor due to the Governor in any way. It is the result of a redesign of the teachers' health plans by VEHI that offerss two high deductible and two regular plans that teachers may choose from, and that have lower premiums than the current plans.

The new plans are cheaper because they are less generous plans. The statewide savings estimate is $75 million. Of that, $48 million is anticipated to be needed to pay for the increased copay and deductible costs in the new plan. The remainder, if you believe the estimates, would be the $26 million which the Governor keeps talking about.

The Governor's plan, as embodied in the Beck amendment to H.509, was to return $8 million of the $26 million to property tax payers and to use the other 70% for other purposes, namely the General Fund and to cover the transfer of the liability for the state portion of current teacher retirement obligations to the Education Fund.  This transfer would lead to higher property taxes in the long run.
The issue of statewide bargaining has no impact on whether the savings occur.

What the House passed instead, the Webb amendment, was a provision that makes no change in bargaining, but directs 100% of the savings that actually occur in teacher healthcare to be returned directly to local communities in the form of reduced property taxes.  The money saved would be returned to a local school district only after a budget was voted upon and approved. It can go to only one place, and that is to directly reduce property taxes. All of the savings, rather than just the 30% in the Governor’s plan would come back to your property taxes. This is what property taxpayers want, and why I voted against the Beck amendment and for the Webb amendment.

The Word in the House 5/11/2017 - Teachers' Health Care Proposal

In the final week of the legislature bills move at a fairly rapid pace between the House and Senate as differences are resolved and agreement is reached. Some legislation, however, deals with highly controversial issues such as marijuana legalization, paid family leave, and education issues. These bills often generate much floor debate and take hours, if not days, to bring to completion. On two different days of the expected final week, legislators remained on the floor until nearly midnight before completing business.
One of the most contentious bills was the education financing bill, H.509. This bill was being amended to include the Governor's proposal that would create a statewide health insurance contract for teachers. While the proposal sounds like a good idea, it was offered so late in the session the legislature was not able to properly investigate the assumptions, tax implications and labor policy implications in the way the legislature conscientiously approaches all legislation. Issues like this are not black and white and require getting input from many sources and affected parties..

With that in mind, the House Ways & Means Committee did examine the proposal and determined that there may be up to $26M of savings to be realized, but only half of that in FY18. It is important to note also that the $26M figure is a “guesstimate” based on a presumed decreased use of health care services by teachers under the new plans. Furthermore, the Governor's proposal would direct much of the savings to be used for other purposes than reducing the property tax. Rep. Kate Webb of Shelburne offered an alternative proposal as an amendment that would use the same expected savings from the lower premiums of the new teachers' health insurance plans to go to the Education Fund and be funneled back to the individual districts according to the savings realized by the district.

The right of employees to unionize and bargain collectively with their employer is a fundamental right of American workers that was hard fought for and won over the last century and a half. Without unions we would not have a 40-hour work week, overtime pay, safety standards, workers' compensation, a minimum wage, and other employee rights we take for granted. The Governor's proposal would take the negotiation of health care contracts out of the hands of local bargaining units and districts and give it to a statewide union and the Department of Education. Since teachers are employees of individual districts and not of the state, the proposed arrangement takes both the employees and the districts out of the process. And if negotiations broke down and teachers went on strike, it would affect the entire state instead of being localized to a single district. This would not be good for Vermonters.

The Webb amendment keeps the negotiations local and guarantees that the savings will come back to the local districts. As a practical matter, since about 25% of teachers’ compensation comes in the form of health insurance, removing that huge piece from the local negotiation of teachers’ contracts takes a big piece off the table as the negotiators balance pay increases against health insurance benefits.

As you probably have heard, the vote ended in a tie, 74 - 74, on the Beck amendment, and the Webb amendment was subsequently passed. The bill went to the Senate, which will have its own say. Our hope is that the Governor and the legislature will come to some compromise agreement that will accomplish the savings in a mutually satisfactory manner and avoid a potential veto session. The expected May 6th adjournment has been postponed as those negotiations take place and will resume the following Wednesday.

I encourage you to let me know your concerns and opinions. I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (

Legislative Report 5/10/2017 - Laws & Sausage

By the time you read this, the Vermont legislature will be within days of adjournment. You've probably heard the saying that legislating is a lot like making sausage. This is never more true than in the last couple of weeks of Vermont's legislative session. An example of how this works can be illustrated by Senate bill S.52.

S.52 was originally crafted to make some changes to the Public Service Board process for conducting CPG (Certificate of Public Good) hearings. As you may remember from previous articles, most bills have to be passed out of the House or Senate by a certain date called “crossover”, usually a week or two after Town Meeting, to be considered by the other body. There are exceptions, but these are limited to certain types of bills like money bills and municipal charter bills. However, there are ways to get around this limitation, as S.52 demonstrates.

As it came over from the Senate, the bill gives municipal and regional planning commissions a little more control over the 45 day pre-application period when a developer notifies the local commission of its intention to site an energy generation project. It allows the commission to require the Department of Public Service to attend a local hearing and to hire an expert at the applicant's expense to evaluate the project. It also extends by a few days the time for the commission to make recommendations to the PSB regarding the project. In addition, the bill standardizes the comment periods for energy, meteorological stations, and telecommunication facilities CPG applications to 30 days from their current periods ranging from 21 to 30 days. It gives the Department of Public Service authority to investigate complaints regarding noncompliance with CPG terms and conditions and to issue administrative citations and penalties up to $5000 for violations. Finally, the bill would change the name of the Public Service Board to the Public Utility Commission, the name used by most other states. The last provision would help alleviate the public's confusion between the Department and the Board.

Here's where the art of legislative scheduling becomes creative. Since the Energy & Technology Committee passed a number of bills earlier in the session that were not yet acted upon by the Senate, we decided to add them to S.52. These bills included the telecommunication facility siting process renewal bill (H.50), the ten year telecommunication planning bill (H.347), and the appliance energy efficiency standards bill (H.411). If by the end of the session the Senate never got around to acting on them, their language would be included in S.52. Also, since we were unable to finish a bill to have the Department of Public Service study the feasibility and benefits of energy storage technology, e.g. batteries, on the electric grid, we added this language as well.

The House passed these amendments to S.52, which was then returned to the Senate. The Senate can accept the amendments, thereby enacting it and sending it to the Governor. Or, it can make further amendments and send it back to the House. Or, it can decide not to concur and ask for a Committee of Conference between the House and Senate to iron out the differences. In the meantime, if any of the bills that were added passed the Senate before S.52 was finalized, the language corresponding to the enacted bill could be removed from S.52. Thus, from a variety of ingredients, a final bill can emerge. This “sausage-making” process occurs frequently as the House and Senate work to come to a consensus on various pieces of legislation before time runs out. I hope the “sausage” will taste good, or at least be in good taste.

I encourage you to let me know your concerns and opinions. I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (

The Word in the House 4/26/2017 - Help for First Responders

Vermont has seen its share of tragic automobile accidents and fatal fires over the years. Accidents like the one on I-89 in Williston caused by a wrong-way driver that killed 5 teens on their way home from a concert or the recent accident on Route 7 in Charlotte that killed a young man require first responders to confront pretty gruesome scenes that can leave a lasting traumatic impression on them, which can cause nightmares, depression and other symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

While PTSD is recognized as a serious mental health condition, counseling and treatment is often not covered by private health insurance or workers compensation. Under current law, if a first responder breaks an ankle while responding to a vehicle collision they would have health care and wage replacement while they are unable to work through their workers compensation coverage. However, if they respond to a particularly horrific scene and suffer a PTSD injury, they would not be covered for mental health treatment or replacement wages while they recover. The current criterion for work-related PTSD requires a worker to show that the event or stress was extraordinary and unusual in comparison to the pressures and tensions experienced by the average worker in his or her occupation. Insurers often use this standard to argue that first responders commonly encounter such stressful situations, and it is therefore a normal hazard of the occupation and not covered. The House Health Care Committee recognized that this fundamental unfairness flies in the face of Vermont's mental health parity law and created legislation that corrects it.

House bill H.197 creates a presumption that PTSD suffered by a police officer, rescue or ambulance worker, or firefighter that was incurred during service in the line of duty will be covered by workers compensation. The presumption would apply to PTSD that is diagnosed by a mental health professional up to three years after the last date of employment as a police officer, rescue or ambulance worker, or firefighter. However, that presumption could be overcome by evidence showing that the injury was more likely caused by a risk factor or exposure outside of the line of duty.

H.197 provides that a mental condition resulting from a work-related event or work-related stress is compensable if the worker can show that the event or stress was extraordinary and unusual in comparison to the pressures and tensions experienced by the average employee across all occupations. In other words, first responders are human and subject to the same emotional stresses as the rest of us. This provision still requires that an injured worker be able to demonstrate the injury came from work and not some other occurrence. In particular it would not permit a worker to receive compensation for a mental condition resulting from a disciplinary action, work evaluation, job transfer, layoff, demotion, termination, or similar action taken in good faith by his or her employer.

This bill has been sent to the Senate Rules Committee which will decide whether to act on it in the remaining weeks of this session or to leave it rest until next January. First responders perform an invaluable service for our communities. They are there when we need them, and they are willing to put their own lives on the line when called to duty. The least we can do is make sure that they get help when they need it.

I encourage you to let me know your concerns and opinions. I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (

Legislative Report 4/19/2017 - Three Executive Orders, Three Results

Our new President's use of executive orders to try to fulfill some of his campaign promises, particularly regarding immigration, quickly ran into trouble. Executive orders are a way to bypass Congress to establish rules and policies by edict. The President can usually make the order stick if Congress does not have a veto-proof majority, as was the case for President Obama. But if the order is made late in the President's term, a new administration can more easily reverse the order than it can for those made years before. This is why President Trump has been able to reverse several of President Obama's orders issued within the last year.

In Vermont the Governor can also issue executive orders An order will take effect unless the legislature disapproves it within 90 days of issuance. Disapproval by either body of the legislature, either the House or the Senate, will invalidate an executive order. Governor Scott issued three executive orders in January to expedite a reorganization of the executive branch of government. One would move the Department of Labor (DoL) into the Agency of Commerce and Community Development (ACCD). A second order would merge the Department of Liquor Control and the Lottery Commission. A third order would create a new Agency of Digital Services which would have responsibility for all IT services in the executive branch.

The Senate took action to disapprove the first order several weeks ago based on the different missions of the two organizations and the possibility of conflicts of interest that might arise if the order took effect. The ACCD is a business-oriented agency that promotes commerce and business interests. It focuses on broad economic development issues. The DoL on the other hand uses a case management system focusing on individuals and provides job search and job training opportunities for employees, administers Vermont OSHA rules, and advocates employee claims against unfair labor practices. The latter two responsibilities can be in conflict with the mission of ACCD since the final appeal of cases would transfer from the Commissioner of Labor to the Secretary of ACCD.

The second executive order merging liquor and lottery was considered by the House Committee on General, Housing and Military Affairs. The committee was unable to adequately assess the consequences of such a merger because the Scott Administration failed to demonstrate how the merger would result in significant savings or improvement in customer service. The committee found the order to be vague and broad and had questions about how it would affect jobs and revenue. Because the committee was unable to get adequate testimony from the Administration, it felt required to reject the order and instead has introduced a bill, H.525, that would establish a working group to fully explore the advantages of merging these departments. The resolution passed after considerable debate and over the objections of the Governor, and the order will not take effect.

Finally, the third order creating the Agency of Digital Services (ADS) was assigned to the House Energy and Technology Committee. During our consideration of the order, we were able to work collaboratively with the Administration as both entities reviewed past successes and failures in the creation and administration of the state's IT resources and services. Since most of the IT is currently distributed throughout the various agencies of government, an inventory is being taken of all of the state's technology programs, personnel, and equipment. To avoid disruption of the current work environment and maintain continuity of service, the personnel will report to ADS while remaining embedded within the agencies they support. Our committee has asked the Administration to provide a timeline of the fiscal impact, when and how savings will occur, and to be kept updated regularly on progress throughout the year. The members of our committee were unanimously satisfied that the Administration is on the right track with this plan and believe that it will lead to improved cross-agency collaboration and more efficient, effective and successful administration of the state's IT resources. By not taking action, we have allowed this executive order to go into effect as of April 17, 2017.

I encourage you to let me know your concerns and opinions. I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (

State Senate Pro Tem Tim Ashe Discusses Budget

Vermont State Senate Pro Tem Tim Ashe (D-Chittenden County) appeared on the Chittenden County Democrats Show on April 5, 2017, with co-hosts Bob Hooper and State Representative Mike Yantachka (D-Charlotte-Hinesburg). The trio discussed the state budget recently passed by the Vermont House on a 143 - 1 vote. Ashe gave his perspective on what changes if any might be made by the Senate and the potential effects the Trump administration in Washington might have on Vermont's fiscal situation.  Vermont's spending is significantly funded by federal dollars.  See the program here.

Legislative Report 4/5/2017 - Marijuana Legalization

Any issue under consideration by the legislature that is controversial will generate a lot of emails and phone calls from constituents and from advocates, both pro and con. Marijuana legalization is the controversial issue of this session, and I heard from many of you as well as from organizations advocating for and against legalization. I have taken the time to read the emails and listen to the phone calls, and I have tried to answer most of them. I also discussed the issue with fellow legislators, with doctors, police, attorneys, and teens. I found people in all those categories on both sides of the issue.

My two major concerns about marijuana have to do with driving under the influence and its use by youth. Anything that alters perceptions and slows reactions is dangerous when combined with driving. This is true of marijuana and equally true of alcohol. Young people, whose brains continue to develop well into their twenties, risk their futures with heavy use of marijuana which dulls ambition as addiction takes over. And while tobacco is more of a stimulant, it can do considerable damage to a person's physical health. All of these have greater effects on young people than on adults.

So, any of these substances can be abused with terrible consequences. Prohibition did not work for alcohol and, so far, hasn't worked for marijuana, either. However, education and regulation can minimize abuse even if it doesn't eliminate use. The fact is, marijuana has been easy to get whether we want to recognize it or not. Ask a high school student and they'll probably tell you that it is easier to obtain marijuana than alcohol. Those that want to use it will use it with or without legalization, and those that recognize the danger will avoid it. There will be irresponsible people who get behind a wheel while high just as there are irresponsible people who get behind a wheel after drinking. We should not tolerate either behavior, whether or not the substances are legal.

Another concern is whether marijuana is a gateway drug, leading a user to try more dangerous drugs. Data does not substantiate that, and we are now seeing that over-prescription of pain killer drugs to treat injuries or pain after surgery has been a much greater precursor to opiate addiction.

H.170 eliminates all penalties for the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana for a person 21 years old or older while retaining civil and criminal penalties for possession of larger amounts and criminal penalties for unauthorized dispensing or sale of marijuana. It also allows up to two mature marijuana plants to be cultivated by a person 21 or older with a limit of two plants per dwelling. The bill retains civil penalties for possession of marijuana by a person under 21, the same as for alcohol, and exacts heavy penalties on anyone who furnishes marijuana to a person under 21 and on anyone, regardless of age, who drives under the influence. Consumption of marijuana in public places is also forbidden. The bill was presented on the floor of the House, but before much debate took place, the body voted to send the bill to the Human Resources Committee for further consideration.

As one doctor told me, “accepting that there are potential dangers associated with the use of marijuana should not automatically lead one to favor continued criminalization. The policy of criminalization also has serious adverse effects for individuals and for society. These include impacts on the criminal justice system, how citizens view the law, and high rates of incarceration. Criminalization will not stop people from using marijuana. … It may even be beneficial to go further and legalize sale so that marijuana users could be protected from illegal dealers who may adulterate marijuana with dangerous substances.” I agree with this assessment and will vote for H.170 when it comes to the floor again.

I encourage you to let me know your concerns and opinions. I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (

The Word in the House 3/29/2017 - Safety and Accommodation

Every year hundreds of bills are introduced in the Vermont House of Representatives. Each is assigned to one of the 15 standing committees for consideration. Relatively few are actually voted out of committee and brought to the floor for consideration by the full House. Those that are must be voted out of committee by “crossover”, which fell on March 17th this year, so that the Senate has time to consider them. The same crossover date holds for Senate bills as well.

Dozens of bills were voted on and passed by the House without major opposition during the week following crossover. However, two bills engendered considerable debate. One dealt with domestic violence and guns and the other addressed accommodations in the workplace for pregnant women.

Domestic violence continues to be a problem in Vermont. In 2015, six of Vermont’s 16 homicides were domestic violence related, and all six were committed with a firearm. Between 1994 and 2015, 131 domestic violence-related homicides were committed, and 77 of them (59%) were committed with firearms. While current law allows for the confiscation of firearms when the court orders the removal at the point of a final relief from abuse order or following a conviction for a violent crime, more protection of victims is needed when police first respond to an incident. Statistics show that the most dangerous time for a victim is when they reach out for help. After two days of debate, the House passed H.422, which provides that after an individual has been arrested or cited for domestic assault, law enforcement can remove any firearms in the perpetrator's possession or in plain view. It is important to note that these provisions would only apply when probable cause has been found to arrest or cite someone for domestic assault. If there is no further court order, the guns would be returned within 5 days. The concern was raised that this legislation is about gun control. It is not. It is a precautionary measure to protect the lives of victims of domestic assault.

The second bill, H.136, which requires an employer to provide a reasonable accommodation in the workplace that might be needed by a pregnant woman, was passed after several hours of debate. A Supreme Court decision from 2006 segregated pregnancy from portions of the existing discrimination law and determined that simply being pregnant, or having an issue with one’s pregnancy, isn’t enough to ask for different tasks that accommodate that pregnancy. H.136 will make it possible for a pregnant woman to ask for a temporary accommodation such as a restriction on heavy lifting, or exposure to certain chemicals, or standing for prolonged periods. The bill makes it unlawful for an employer to refuse to provide an accommodation at the request of a pregnant employee unless it proves to be an undue hardship for the business.“Undue hardship” means an action requiring significant difficulty or
expense to the employer and can depend on the employer's size. This bill encourages communication between the employer and the employee and should help to provide a safe workplace environment for everyone.

A word on the budget is in order. At the time of this writing, the House Appropriations Committee has moved from a $70M shortfall in the Governor's proposed budget to around $4M. The committee members are still working to resolve that difference, hopefully with cooperation from Governor Scott's administration. The committee is trying to squeeze every dollar out of the budget while maintaining the necessary programs and service that keep Vermonters safe, healthy and productive, and the economy working for all.

I encourage you to let me know your concerns and opinions. I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (

Legislative Report 3/22/2017 - The Doyle Poll 2017

The Doyle Poll, created and still conducted by former Senator Bill Doyle, has been a tradition of Town Meetings in Vermont for decades. Only 109 Charlotte voters shared their opinions this year, about half of last year's number. Of the fifteen questions, ten seemed to me to be either obvious or too ambiguous to allow a clear interpretation of the results.

Clearly, most people think we need to do a lot more to address the opiate crisis, abuse and neglect of children, and identification of water pollution sources. Identifying pollution sources is important, but what is the willingness of people to spend tax dollars on cleanup? Whether or not one is satisfied with Vermont's health care does not address why. Is the price too high? Does VT Health Connect still not work?

The questions and answers I found helpful were numbers 3, 5, 8, 10, and 11. 60% of respondents felt that Vermont should increase funding for state colleges (#3). This is a worthy goal which I share. However increasing funding for college means cutting back somewhere else or raising taxes. If we were to follow Governor Scott's recommendation, the increase would come from the Education Fund which would raise property taxes. Transferring money from the General Fund would mean shortchanging other needed programs because the Governor wants to hold the line on taxes.

There also seems to be overwhelming support for affordable housing (#5). This is an area where the state and municipalities and the business community can work and are working together to increase affordable housing. Legislation passed in previous years has made it easier to permit and build housing in designated downtowns and village centers. The business community in Chittenden County has joined with municipalities in housing planning as part of the Building Homes Together campaign.

Pretty much everyone, myself included, feels that we rely too heavily on property taxes to fund education. While there do not seem to be a lot of other alternatives to funding, controlling costs will be key to slowing the growth of property taxes. Consolidation under Act 46 has had an immediate positive effect on Charlotte's education property tax rate this year since our cost per pupil has gone down and the 10 cent property tax reduction incentive has kicked in.

Last year the legislature took steps to give towns more say in renewable energy siting (#10). The Regional Planning Commissions are working hard to generate the guidelines that towns can comply with to get “substantial deference”, which means that the Public Service Board would have to comply with the town's land use regulations if they meet the criteria in the guidelines.

Question 11 is closely related to question 5 discussed above. Vermont clearly needs to focus on improving its housing stock so that young people seeking to move to Vermont can afford to do so. Another key factor in this equation that was not addressed by the poll is the need for child care resources. Both of these critical needs are recognized by the Democratic majority in the legislature, and we hope with our Republican colleagues to move legislation addressing them in this session.
Here are all the results of the poll in Charlotte.

Not Sure
Do you think Vermont is having success with the opiate crisis?
Are you satisfied with Vermont's health care?
Should Vermont increase funding for our state colleges?
Does generating energy from renewable sources lead to economic development?
Should we encourage affordable housing in Vermont?
Should Vermont schools be applauded for advances in creative initiatives?
Are you satisfied with the quality of education in your local school district?
Does Vermont rely too heavily on property taxes to fund education?
Are you optimistic about Vermont's economy?
Should Vermont's communities have a voice in siting industrial energy projects?
Should Vermont find ways to expand availability of homes for working families and young professionals?
Do you think that Vermont values is a reason that many people live in Vermont?
Should Vermont continue to address the issue of abuse and neglect of children?
Do you support regulations that help to identify major sources of water pollution?
Should Vermont create a lending program to provide capital for start-up businesses?

As your representative in Montpelier, I appreciate your input on these and other issues. Your comments help me look at issues from several perspectives, and that is a valuable opportunity for me. You can always contact me by phone at 802-425-3960 or email me at