Legislative Report 2/6/2019 - Decarbonization: Options for Climate Change Action

The 2019 State Budget passed last June included money for a study on the costs and benefits of various options to reduce Vermont's carbon emissions in response to climate change. Vermont has several targets for greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction that have been set during the Douglas, Shumlin and Scott administrations. In 2005 Vermont passed a law setting a target of 37% reduction from 1990 levels by 2012. In 2015 Vermont joined the conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers in setting a target of reducing regional GHGs by 45% from 2005 levels by 2030. In 2017 Governor Scott joined the U.S. Climate Alliance which set a taget of GHG reduction of 26% below 2005 levels by 2025. A report from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation released last July showed that Vermont's GHG emissions are currently 16% above 1990 levels, mainly due to transportation and heating. Our electric generation emissions, however, have decreased extensively to the point that they are now about 60% carbon-free and will improve even more in years to come. Transforming our energy use from fossil fuels to electricity will reduce total GHG emissions.

Vermont's Joint Fiscal Office commissioned the firm Resources for the Future (RFF), a non-profit research institution in Washington, DC, to conduct the study. RFF looked at four options: the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) cap-and-trade system, the ESSEX Plan introduced in Vermont last year ($.05/gallon to $.40/g after 8 years), a medium carbon pricing plan ($.30/g to $.50/g by 2030), and a high carbon pricing plan ($.60/g to $1.00/g by 2030). All of the options were assumed to be revenue neutral in their model, that is, all revenues would be returned to taxpayers either through a dividend or through tax relief. Their models took into account the cost/benefit to consumers, the cost to business, estimates of carbon reduction, and the net benefits of revenue allocation and associated health benefits. The impact on consumers was also differentiated by income and geography.

A major conclusion of the study is that transportation and heating fuel uses are relatively insensitive to moderate changes in pricing. People changed their driving habits and paid more attention to their thermostats when fuel was close to $4.00/gallon a couple of years ago. Last year's increase of $.50/gallon for gasoline back in May did little to change driving habits; most people just absorbed the increase. The conclusion was that carbon pricing alone at the levels being considered would not be enough to reduce emissions. However, if carbon pricing were combined with non-pricing policies such as financial assistance for weatherizing homes and incentives for purchasing electric vehicles (used and new), then the targets were achievable.

None of the options would negatively affect Vermont's economy more than a few tenths of a percent overall. However, fuel-intensive businesses would suffer reductions while service related businesses would grow. The economic welfare of families varied by income under all the plans with the lowest 40% benefiting (60% for the ESSEX Plan) and the upper 40% of income earners losing from $15 to $250 per year. Urban dwellers would also be better off than rural folks.

The study looked at carbon pricing in Vermont alone, not at a regional level. Governor Scott has agreed to join other New England and Mid-Atlantic states in studying a regional cap-and-trade plan called the Transportation Climate Initiative. The plan will be designed by the end of the year, after which Vermont can decide whether to join TCI. Scott also has included some money for weatherization and electric vehicle rebates in his 2020 budget. It is imperative that we take concrete steps sooner than later to drive down GHG emissions in Vermont because it will only get more expensive the longer we wait.

I welcome your emails (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com), phone calls (802-233-5238), or in person contacts.

Commentary - Climate Change Demands Action Now 8/3/2018

It is not an exaggeration to say that climate change is one of the greatest challenges facing humanity today.  While there are many who still think that climate change is a hoax, we need only to look at melting polar ice caps, extreme storms with significantly heavier precipitation and flooding, rising global atmospheric temperatures, more frequent and intense heat waves not only in the U.S. but across the globe, and the devastating wildfires in the western U.S. that have increased in both frequency and scope.  This phenomenon will continue to create heavier and heavier economic and social impacts moving forward. We have to ask ourselves what we can do to combat this phenomenon; and to do that we have to consider the cause.

Indeed, there are many who will reluctantly acknowledge that climate change is happening, but attribute it to natural cycles rather than to human influence.  This uninformed view ignores the fact that today's atmospheric CO2 level of 400 parts per million is now 1.3 times higher than the average peak concentrations of about 300 ppm over the last 400,000 years as measured by ice cores. This data is known as the Keeling Curve and is recorded and maintained by the Scripps Oceanographic Institute of the University of California San Diego and can be seen online. This breakout from the historical trend has occurred during the last century as the human race extracted and burned unprecedented amounts of fossil fuels which contain the energy of the sun stored over millions of years.

So, the answer has to be to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Renewable energy development since the turn of the century has provided an alternative to traditional sources of energy such as coal, oil and gas. The costs of solar and wind technology, still in their relative infancy, are already on par with oil and coal. In 2011 Vermont set a goal of becoming 90% renewable over all types of energy use by 2050 and to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2025. Two years ago 189 countries, including the U.S., adopted the Paris Climate Agreement to reduce GHG emissions. Unfortunately, President Trump pulled the U.S. out of that agreement and instead has been encouraging more fossil fuel extraction. Vermont, along with hundreds of state and local governments, has resolved to continue working to achieve our own goals and those of the Paris agreement. So, how are we doing?

Sad to say, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources recently released the 2015 Greenhouse Gas Inventory and the numbers are disheartening. Instead of seeing a reduction of GHG emissions since 2011, the state has exceeded the 1990 baseline by 16%. The full report can be found at the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation website.  While progress has been made in electrical energy generation, the largest GHG increases came in the transportation and heating fuel use components. The latter two components are where we need to concentrate our efforts going forward.  

Renewable electricity is now the cleanest source of energy in Vermont. Moreover, since no fossil fuel is sourced in Vermont, 80% of the cost of fossil fuels leaves the state.  It makes sense to transition as much of our energy used in transportation and heating to cleaner electric energy as we continue to develop in-state renewable electricity generation. This can be encouraged by factoring into the price of fossil fuels the social and economic costs of climate change. By putting a price on carbon pollution in a revenue-neutral way, Vermonters can actually benefit economically by driving and heating more cleanly. This is not a new idea and has been proposed by conservative leaders like George Schultz, Henry Paulson, and James Baker. In a June 20th op-ed in the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/opinion/climate-change-fee-carbon-dioxide.html), former Senators Trent Lott (Republican) and John Breaux (Democrat) made the case for a climate change fee on carbon-based fuels. And Vermont would not be alone in adopting such a strategy.  In June, the Massachusetts Senate passed a bill requiring the state to implement a carbon-pricing strategy by 2020. In Vermont legislators introduced a carbon-pricing proposal called the Economy Strengthening Strategic Energy EXchange (ESSEX) Plan that would channel revenues raised from the carbon fee to offset electricity costs.  To reduce the impact of the fees for low income and rural Vermonters, those consumers would get a greater share of the revenues.

It is well past the time to tackle this world-changing problem.  It is important to understand that we are not doing it alone and that we need to do our part.

Legislative Report 2/8/2018 - Vision Reflects Values

The President's State of the Union address is a tradition of our democracy that allows the head of the executive branch of the government to express his vision for America. It usually addresses a broad range of issues at a high level and is short on detail. Whether or not you agree with what is said, at least you get a pretty good idea of where the speaker is coming from. This got me thinking about my own communications, so I thought I'd try to deliver my own vision of what I try to accomplish as I serve as your Representative in Montpelier.

Let me start by saying that, as wonderful as Vermont is, we all want to help make our state a better place to live, work and play. We want Vermont to be affordable, not just for those at the top of the income bracket, but for everyone. Every family should have the opportunity to thrive, to be able to earn a living wage. While our minimum wage is above average, I believe that it should continue to rise gradually over time until it becomes a livable wage. Likewise, no employee should have to worry about losing their pay or even their job if they have to take time off to care for a sick child or elderly parent. That is why I voted for paid family leave last year, a bill that is awaiting action in the Senate. For those who are stuck in low wage jobs, we need to continue to increase access to training, career and technical education so that every Vermonter has a fair shot at success.

We have a great education system, but the cost of education continues to place a heavy burden on property taxes. With the additional demands placed on our schools from addiction, mental illness, and poverty, great public schools in all our communities are more important than ever in giving all children a bright future. During this session we are proposing a system of education funding that is simpler, still progressive, still subject to local control, and that will significantly reduce property tax burdens. Nor can we forget about the need to support pre-K and post high school educational opportunities.

Another core value is healthy families in healthy communities. The cost of health insurance and housing are the biggest challenges faced by many Vermonters. While Republicans in Washington are dismantling the Affordable Care Act and cutting funding for Medicare and Medicaid we need to make health insurance more affordable and ensure that Vermonters have access to treatment without barriers for drug addiction and mental health. A key to maintaining individual health is affordable housing, We need to support affordable housing development in downtowns and in village centers that also provides access to jobs, shopping and public transportation.

Finally, we need a healthy environment. We can't put off efforts to clean our lakes and streams. We have to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels which has become a major contributor to climate change. Extreme weather events as well as adverse health effects. Lyme disease, algae blooms, heat waves, and extreme cold are the result. We can't afford to do nothing,

These are some of the values that frame my work in the legislature. I hope that my work will lead to a better Vermont for us and for our children and grandchildren.

I'll end by reminding you that I will be hosting an informational forum on the topic of Pricing Carbon Pollution at the Charlotte Senior Center on Monday. February 12, at 7:00 p.m. I hope to see you there.

As always, I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).

The Word in the House 2/18/2015 - Vermont's New Renewable Energy Policy

Q. What would lead to a 6% increase in Vermont's electric utility rates? A. Doing nothing.

 

For the last 10 years, Vermont has grown its renewable energy industry under a program called SPEED (Sustainably Priced Energy Enterprise Development). Under that program Vermont became a leader not only of utility based Renewable Energy (RE) development, but of distributed generation with net metering. Distributed generation means that the energy is generated close to where it is consumed. Set to expire in 2017, the SPEED program is in need of retirement now, however. As our neighboring states in the New England regional grid have set their own renewable energy standards, Vermont's SPEED program has come under criticism because we allow the Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) to be sold to utilities outside of Vermont while the energy that is produced is counted toward our in-state RE requirements. This “double-dipping” has become unacceptable to Connecticut and Massachusetts who claim that selling VT RECs to their utilities suppresses RE development in their states. 

 

The REC market operates much like a stock market with RECs associated with different types of RE generation having different values. Thus, a utility generating power with high-value RECs can sell those and buy back lower value RECs as long as that type of energy is considered renewable in the state the utility operates in. Utilities with excess RECs can sell them to reduce their operating costs.

 

If CT and MA stop buying Vermont RECs, a significant revenue stream for our utilities that has helped to keep our rates among the lowest in New England will disappear. The immediate impact would be a 6% increase in our average electric rates. To prevent this the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee with the help of the Department of Public Service has written legislation to replace the SPEED program with what is known as a Renewable Portfolio Standard. It would set the goals for RE generation for our utilities and require the RECs to be retained, thereby bringing our policies in line with those of our neighbors. Already the potential for passage of this legislation has led CT to hold off on legislation preventing its utilities from buying VT RECs.

Our bill, H.40, establishes the Renewable Energy Standard and Energy Transformation (RESET) Progam. It is designed to grow the share of Vermont's electricity consumption that comes from RE sources, to support new community-scale distributed generation, and to promote innovative projects that reduce fossil fuel use and save Vermonters money. There are three tiers:

1. Total Renewable Electric Requirement – 55% of sales by an electric utility in 2017 rising to 75% by 2032 will be from renewable sources. These goals are already in law, but will now require REC retention. Utilities may still sell RECs in excess of the mandated requirement.
2. Distributed Generation – 1% of sales in 2017, rising to 10% in 2032, will come from distributed generation including net metered solar, wind, hydro, and bio-fuels as long as the RECs attributed to that generation are retired by the utilities benefiting from them.
3. Energy Innovation Projects – 2% of sales in 2017 rising to 12% in 2032 would come from energy transformation projects. This tier sets targets for utility-led or partnered projects that save fossil fuels for heating or transportation and save money for consumers. Measured in BTU-equivalents (thermal units of energy), projects which save fossil fuels by either conservation or transformation can be counted toward this RE requirement. Examples include weatherization, cold-climate heat pumps, geothermal heat pumps, electric vehicles, and biomass heating. These projects would count only if they are in addition to those already happening through existing regulatory programs or state funding.
   

 

By proactively adopting the RESET Program, rate increases are projected to rise by less than 0.5% by 2017, more than 1000 new jobs will be created in the industry, more than 400 megawatts of new distributed generation will be added, and by 2032 about 15 million metric tons of greenhouse gases emissions will be avoided and $275M will be saved on Vermonters' energy bills.

 

I continue to welcome your thoughts and questions and can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com)

The Word in the House 1/21/2015 - Setting the Stage for Environmental Action

Many observers were disappointed when Governor Shumlin's inaugural speech barely mentioned the three issues that were foremost in Vermonters' minds in 2014: property taxes, education spending and health care. Instead, his inaugural speech focused primarily on the environment. He began by laying out his "agenda for progress" emphasizing the positive accomplishments in the growth of the renewable energy industry in Vermont with an accompanying 15,000 new jobs, "pioneering the development and deployment of locally generated, low carbon energy, creating jobs and putting money in Vermonter’s pockets while we do it.” He noted that while neighboring New England states are seeing double-digit increases in electric rates, Green Mountain Power, Vermont's largest utility has reduced rates by more than 2%. He is proposing a new Energy Innovation Program (EIP) to replace the SPEED (Sustainably Priced Energy Enterprise Development) program which was responsible for the strong growth of Vermont's renewable energy industry and which expires in 2017. If implemented, the EIP is projected to: Create over 1,000 new jobs; Save Vermonters hundreds of millions of dollars on their energy bills; and Cut greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 15 million metric tons, nearly a quarter of the reduction needed for Vermont to be on track to meet its 2050 climate goal. To this end the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee on which I serve will be taking up a bill this week to create the new renewable energy standard for the future.

The second part of his agenda focused on the cleanup of Vermont's waterways, especially Lake Champlain. Lake Champlain is a critical part of our economy and its protection is vital to keeping Vermont the place we know, enjoy and love. We all know of the problems with blue-green algae blooms in the northern part of the lake and in Lake Memphremagog. This is due to excess phosphorus loading that originates primarily as a result of runoff from farms and impervious surfaces like roads and parking lots. Together these sources are responsible for 70% of the phosphorus that flows into Lake Champlain from its streams and tributaries. The EPA has put Vermont on notice that it is in violation of clean water standards and we have to move now to clean it up. As Governor Shumlin said in his speech, "If we don't do it, it will be done to us." The Administration will work to implement the Lake Champlain restoration plan submitted to the EPA last spring, the most comprehensive and strategic effort yet undertaken by Vermont to protect and restore the state’s waters. It will include assistance to farmers and municipalities as well as provide strong regulatory enforcement. The Natural Resources and Energy Committee will be working in tandem with the Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources Committee and the Agriculture and Forestry Committee to address this issue.

A week after his inaugural address, Governor Shumlin delivered his budget address and did put a spotlight on property taxes, education spending and health care. In addition to a balanced budget that closes a $94 million budget gap, the Governor laid out the rest of his aggressive agenda that includes proposals to cut in half the Medicaid cost shift, reduce private health insurance premiums, help get school spending under control, eliminate the cost of an associate’s degree for some Vermont students to provide Vermont employers a pipeline of skilled workers, and increase economic development incentives. I plan to address this part of his agenda in a future article.

Legislative Report 4/24/2014 - Focusing on Water Quality

For more than two decades Vermont has worked to clean up its lakes, streams and rivers with various degrees of success.  Gone are the days when sewage and industrial effluents were discharged directly into streams and rivers.  Yet we still have much further to go to prevent conditions that lead to toxic algae blooms in lakes and ponds and to high nitrogen levels in the Connecticut River that result in oxygen depleted dead zones in Long Island Sound. 

One measure of water quality is the amount of nutrients, i.e. phosphates and nitrogen compounds, in a body of water that contribute to algae growth.  Limits on these nutrients are set by the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that water quality is maintained at an acceptable level.  This limit is called the total maximum daily load, or TMDL. Despite the state’s reaching one-third of the TMDL goal in less than 10 years, the EPA revoked approval of the initial TMDL plan for Lake Champlain in 2011 because of ongoing problems such as the algae blooms.  Vermont had until the end of March this year to submit a new plan, and the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation did so. 

The VDEC issued a report documenting the sources of the nutrients flowing into Lake Champlain.  The report showed that about 3% of the nutrients are coming from municipal sewage treatment facilities, about 10% from impervious surfaces such as roads and parking lots, another 10% from developed land, about 20% from river and streambank erosion during significant storm events, and about 40% from agricultural operations.  VDEC proposed a 20 year implementation plan with an estimated cost of $150M.  In order to accomplish these goals, legislative action is also needed.

Last week the House passed H.586 to address improving the quality of the state’s waters in a comprehensive manner.  Much of the responsibility and cost for meeting the new EPA TMDL may fall on Vermont’s farmers, who likely will be subject to additional requirements under the accepted agricultural practices (AAPs) and other agricultural water quality rules.  Although the AAP rules were adopted in 1995, the legislature found a general lack of awareness in the “small farm” community about the AAPs.  The bill directs the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets to educate small farm operators in the State about the requirements of the AAPs.  This will include identifying cost-effective strategies, best management practices and conservation practices of cover cropping, grassed waterways, manure drag lines and injection, no-till production, and contour plowing.  It also establishes a small farm certification program to ensure compliance with AAPs.

While additional state and federal assistance is necessary to help bring farms into compliance, including technical and financial assistance to encourage small farms to adopt and implement nutrient management plans, funding mechanisms were removed from the bill by amendments proposed by the Ways and Means committee.  A quarter percent increase in the Rooms and Meals tax and a one percent increase on the automobile rental tax were stripped from the bill that came out of the Fish Wildlife and Water Resources committee.  The bill now recommends establishing financing mechanisms between now and January 15, 2015, to implement the provisions of the bill.

The bill is now in the hands of the Senate.  Like the Shorelands Protection bill, H.526, which passed the House last year, was modified by the Senate and sent to a conference committee to work out the differences, H.586 is likely to be amended before final passage.  If differences cannot be worked out before the end of the session in May, the bill will die and will have to be reintroduced next year as a new bill.  In the meantime, nutrients will continue to flow into Lake Champlain and we will continue to see toxic algae blooms.

On a lighter note, the Charlotte Whale has a new companion.  The Charlotte Whale was designated as the State Fossil in 1993 and is housed at the Perkins Geology Museum at UVM.  A bill passed last week redesignated the Charlotte Whale as the State “Marine” Fossil and named the Mount Holly Wooly Mammoth as the State “Terrestrial” Fossil.  The Mammoth is on display at the Mount Holly Historical Society Museum.

TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP TRADE PACT

MEDIA RELEASE MAY 20, 2013 CONTACTS:        Maine Rep. Sharon Treat,  207-242-8558 satreat@gmail.com   Iowa Rep. Charles Isenhart 563-557-1261 (in district); 515-281-3221 charles.isenhart@legis.state.ia.us   South Dakota Rep. Frank Kloucek, retired 605-583-4468 fkloucek@hotmail.com     Vermont Rep. Mike Yantachka  802-425-3960  myantachka.dfa@gmail.com ----------------------------------------------------- MORE THAN FIFTY STATE LEGISLATORS VOICE CONCERN ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP TRADE PACT  ------------------------------------------------------    May 20, 2013    WASHINGTON DC -- Today, more than 50 state legislators from 24 states sent a letter to the Acting US Trade Representative, Ambassador Demetrios Marantis, expressing deep concerns about how the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would impact the environment, energy, and natural resources in their states and in other countries in agreement. The letter comes as the US is in the midst of the 17th round of TPP negotiations in Lima, Peru.      In the letter, the state legislators wrote, "While we understand and appreciate that the United States is advocating for an ambitious and legally binding environment chapter of the TPP, we are deeply concerned that other parts of the agreement, including provisions on or related to investment and energy exports, threaten the environment and our responsibility, as legislators, to serve and protect our constituents."     The concerns addressed in the letter include:    1. The need for an ambitious and binding environment chapter of the TPP that protects the environment, natural resources, and U.S. jobs, including a ban on the trade of illegally harvested timber, a ban on trade in illegally taken wildlife, and binding provisions on sustainable fisheries management.   2. Provisions in the TPP allowing investor-state dispute settlement, which would undermine the ability of local elected officials to enact and enforce fair, non-discriminatory rules that protect communities, workers, and the environment.    3. Language in the TPP that would increase exports of liquid natural gas by requiring the Department of Energy (DOE) to approve all US gas exports to TPP countries -- even if exports are not in the best interest of the public -- essentially overriding the DOE's ability to manage natural gas exports so as to protect the interests of communities and the environment.   "The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is NAFTA on steroids.  If provisions allow corporations to sue state and national governments over laws and regulations that negatively impact their profits, it won't matter what laws we pass to protect our citizens and our environment," stated Vermont Rep. Mike Yantachka, who sponsored a resolution on the TPP and the environment which recently was enacted by the Vermont House and Senate (J.R.H. 12; details of the resolution are posted here).    "This is too important and far reaching not to get exactly right. The environmental chapter can't just be the "10 Suggestions".  Binding understandings are necessary to protect the quality of our own, our children's and our grand children's lives," said Maine Representative Ann Peoples.   "Based on legal challenges that have been made under other international agreements, questions could be raised about many other state and federal programs, Iowa Representative Charles Isenhart said. "Food safety laws, country-of-origin meat labeling, government procurement and renewable energy incentive programs could be at stake."    Maine Representative Sharon Treat, Co-chair of the Maine Citizen Trade Advisory Commission, stated: "It is critical that environmental regulations not be undermined by provisions in the TPP that seek to 'harmonize' standards and allow foreign corporations to challenge domestic laws in binding arbitration panels.  State legislators have a particular interest in how the TPP will operate. In our federalist system, U.S. state governments share environmental regulatory authority with the federal government, and must have the flexibility to develop more ambitious environmental policies in the future."   The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a trade pact currently being negotiated by the United States and 10 other countries across the Pacific Rim. Because the TPP is intended as a "docking agreement," other countries can join over time, and Japan has already announced its intention to join the talks. It is similar to the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, only the scale and scope of the TPP could make its impacts much more severe.  Governments want to conclude this trade pact by October 2013.     Read the full letter, which remains open for additional signatures, here.   #####

The Word in the House 4/9/2012 - Working Landscapes

The defining characteristic of Vermont is its rural nature and the connection Vermonters have to their environment.  The Working Lands Enterprise Investment Bill, H.496, passed by the House recently, recognizes this relationship and provides support to stimulate a concerted economic development effort on behalf of Vermont’s agriculture and forest products sectors.  It will assist entrepreneurism, business development, and job creation in these sectors.

Vermont is currently in the midst of an agricultural renaissance and is at the forefront of the local foods movement.  Much of this activity takes place in our own communities of Charlotte, Hinesburg, and surrounding towns.  The conversion of agricultural and forest products into value-added products within Vermont’s borders represents further economic and employment opportunities.  About 7,000 jobs exist in the forest products sector and about 57,000 are related to the food system.

H.496 makes an investment in Vermont’s working landscape by creating the Working Lands Enterprise Fund and a Working Lands Enterprise Board.  The fund, initially appropriated at $2.1 million, will be used for direct investment in working lands enterprises.  Approximately $550,000 will provide grants to entrepreneurs, including grants to leverage private capital, to jump-start new businesses, to help beginning farmers access land, and to support diversification projects to add value to farm and forest commodities.  Another $350,000 is allocated for “wrap-around” services to growth companies, including technical assistance, business planning, and financing required by companies ready to transition to the next stage of growth.  $800,000 is included for state infrastructure investments, including investment in private and non-profit sectors for creative diversification projects and value-added manufacturing, processing, storage and distribution.  Finally, about $382,000 is allocated for administration by the Agency of Agriculture.

The Working Lands Enterprise board would oversee and administer the fund and coordinate the enterprise development efforts throughout the state.  In addition to promoting the activities described above, it would also establish and evaluate criteria and benchmarks for investments and solicit appropriate perspectives and information from experts.  The board will replace the Agriculture Innovation Center which had similar but more limited responsibilities.

The investment in Vermont’s working landscape will ensure that Vermont will retain its rural and natural character and will continue to represent the vision that people associate with our state, contributing to the tourism sector of our economy in the process. 

On the redistricting front, there were changes to both the House and Senate redistricting plans that affect Charlotte and Hinesburg.  After much deliberation and review of the deviations from the ideal district sizes, the House Government Operations committee presented their final version of the redistricting plan.  One of the changes was the expansion of the section of Hinesburg attached to the Charlotte house district.  In this final version the southwestern portion of Hinesburg bordered by Drinkwater Rd, Baldwin Rd, and the Monkton town line with 33 residents will remain in the Charlotte district.  The rest of Hinesburg will comprise the other district.

The Senate finally voted its reapportionment plan out of its Government Operations committee.  In order to balance the population changes, Chittenden County had to cede part of its population to Addison County.  The new plan joins Huntington and Buels Gore to the Addison County senatorial district instead of Charlotte, which will remain in the Chittenden County senatorial district.

Legislative Report 2/18/2012 - Climate Change Demands Response

This past December, after a year of hearings involving businesses, environmental groups, government agencies, and other citizens, the Vermont Department of Public Service published the Comprehensive Energy Plan.  The vision expressed in the Plan to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels by moving Vermont to 90% renewable energy by 2050 is key to setting us on the correct path to our energy future.  Not surprisingly, there is resistance to that vision.  We get questions like: Climate change is a "hoax"; why are you wasting time on it?  How much can the small state of Vermont do to affect a global problem?  Why are we supporting energy resources that are economically unfeasible instead of cheaper coal, natural gas or nuclear? 

Looking at what is happening to our global environment, it is obvious that the global climate is indeed warming.  The north polar icecap as well as glaciers from Greenland to Antarctica are shrinking more each year causing sea levels to rise such that island nations in the Pacific are already losing substantial land mass.  And the effect is a feedback loop that is accelerating the change.  Solar energy, reflected less by the disappearing ice, is being absorbed and converted to infrared, which in turn heats the atmosphere.  Methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, is being released as permafrost melts in the arctic regions and organic matter that has been frozen for thousands of years decays.  Increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases are decreasing the ability of the earth to radiate heat back into space, and the exploding use of fossil fuels since the mid-19th century has caused them to increase exponentially. 

Some will say that this is just a natural progression of the earth's thermal cycle, and maybe it is considering that the human race is part of the planet’s ecosystem, just as the dinosaurs were hundreds of millions of years ago.  Maybe our consumption of fossil fuels is just a way of recycling all that stored solar energy.  And maybe it is a tribute to our efficiency that we have learned how to recycle it so quickly.

But it doesn't change the fact that more thermal energy is available in the atmosphere to cause more energetic and frequent storms.  It doesn't change the fact that a rise in sea levels caused by the tremendous release of water stored in the glaciers and icecaps will impact coastal areas on every continent.  And it won't change the fact that some areas will see increased rainfall and flooding while others will dry out as rising temperatures and disappearing polar ice cause changes in air and ocean circulation patterns.

Maybe we have already reached the point of no return.  I hope not.  But with that hope, I want to see our policies change to at least slow down, if not reverse, our patterns of energy use, not so much for the sake of our generation, but for our grandchildren and future generations.  That will only happen by reducing our fossil fuel consumption, by learning to use the clean energy supplied so abundantly by nature even if it means some impact to the visual landscape, and by investing in research and development of technologies that will help us move toward this goal.

I am proud of the work we are doing in the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee to support that goal of making Vermont a model for clean, job-creating, renewable energy development and working with other states as they implement similar policies.

Solar Farm Siting: Why Can't the Town Decide?

 “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”  “One man’s junk is another man’s treasure.”

The range of responses by Charlotte residents to two solar projects that were proposed over the last several months reminds me of those aphorisms.  Some folks can’t stand the sight of solar panels while others get excited by them.  Some folks like the idea of renewable energy generation but are concerned that a large scale solar farm near their residences would detract from their property values.

While the decision for the relatively small Thompson’s Point solar project involved a high degree of public participation that got results for those opposed to it, the solar farm project proposed adjacent to Hinesburg Road is subject to an entirely different review process.  This review, which applies to large scale renewable energy projects, is called the Certificate of Public Good (CPG) process and is conducted by the Public Service Board (PSB) to determine if a permit will be granted.

A lot of people are asking, “Why does the Public Service Board have the final say?  What about our planning and zoning bylaws? Why should the state be butting in on a local decision?”  In this article, I will try to explain briefly the how and why of the process.

For small scale solar or wind generation like a homeowner might install, the permit process is pretty simple.  For commercial scale electric generation, however, the amount of electricity being pumped into the electric grid, the connections required, the effect on the environment, the utility buying the electricity, the cost of the electricity, and the effect on rates must be considered.  The PSB is charged in Vermont law to oversee and regulate everything that involves public utilities so that the public is protected and energy availability is guaranteed.  The rules by which it does this for any new project are contained in Section 248 of Title 30 of the Vermont Statutes. 

These rules set up a quasi-judicial process, which means that the PSB effectively acts as a judge to determine if the project is in the public interest and whether any adverse effects are outweighed by benefits to Vermont and the general public.  The PSB takes into consideration many criteria, including the need for the power, alternatives to meeting the demand, the economic benefits like jobs and taxes, Act 250 criteria for environmental effects, aesthetics, how it affects the stability and reliability of the grid, whether it conflicts with Vermont’s energy plan, and whether it contributes to the general good of Vermont.  It is the responsibility of the developer to demonstrate that all these criteria are satisfied.  Moreover, the PSB is very open to participation in the review process by affected individuals, local officials, and other parties as interveners, either on their own or through legal representation.  After hearing all the evidence, and with input from an able staff of technical experts and lawyers, the board may approve the project, reject it, or require modifications that have to be satisfied for approval.

Just as a judge has the authority to make a decision in a court case, the PSB has the ultimate say in a Section 248 case.  However, if any of the parties disagrees with the PSB’s decision, they can appeal the decision to the Vermont Supreme Court.

The bottom line is that the CPG process attempts to ensure that the decision is in the best interests of everyone based on the facts presented. 

Celebrating 10-10-10 with Transition Town Charlotte

I was privileged to participate in a tree planting project -- 10 trees on 10/10/10 -- organized by Transition Town Charlotte in conjunction with 350.org.  350.org, organized by Bill McKibben and Middlebury College students, enlisted hundreds of thousands of people in 188 countries and throughout the U.S. to take part in more than 7300 events to call attention to the fact that the max sustainable CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere is 350 ppm.  Currently it is around 390 ppm, which is contributing to global warming and climate change.  See more at http://www.350.org/en/about/science and http://www.350.org/en/node/17812.