Entergy's Best Spokesman!

Entergy, the huge New Orleans power corporation that owns our state's only nuke plant, could not have a better spokesman in Vermont than the one who strode before the TV cameras and radio microphones at the Statehouse Thursday.

The articulate and loquacious smoothie ridiculed the Democrats’ latest proposal to pay for Vermont’s fight to slow Global Warming by taxing either Entergy’s windfall profits or the growing amount of deadly nuclear waste stored on its Vernon, Vermont site. Those buckeroos - about $35 million over the last five years of VT Yankee's operating license - would bankroll a new state-run energy efficiency utility dedicated to reducing Vermonters energy use by boosting renewables and dramatically increasing energy efficiency.

Entergy did not have to hire its new Vermont spokesman. He’s already getting a paycheck - from the State of Vermont. His name is James Douglas. He lives in MIddlebury, and he’s our governor!

Here’s an excerpt of Gov. Smoothie’s remarks on the matter from his weekly presser under the golden dome:

DOUGLAS: It’s another example of Democrats in the legislature proposing a new tax. It seems every few weeks they come up with a new tax idea, whether it’s the transfer of homes, gasoline or home-heating fuel or large vehicles, mini-vans, now it’s the Yankee Power Plant. They come up with more ideas to tax Vermonters and entities in our state that I think is quite disconcerting, because as you know, we’re the most heavily taxed state in America according to both the Census Bureau and the Tax Foundation.

This would fund some new bureaucracy to help Vermonters conserve, and I certainly want Vermonters to conserve...but I think there’s a lot more work to be done before embracing some new tax and new bureaucracy.

Press: As you know, Sen. Peter Shumlin [right] at his Monday press conference accused you, and if he were here now would probably say that in the last five minutes you’ve done an excellent job, as you always do, of "talking the talk,” but you have not "walked the walk."

Things are getting very serious on global warming. He says we only have 10 years. We have to take serious steps, serious action. Just filing lawsuits here and there isn’t enough anymore.

You still haven’t told us how you would fund the program.

You never give a suggestion on the funding side?

DOUGLAS: Well, because, Peter,  We don’t have a system where each program of state government is funded by a discreet source. We have a budget, a large multibillion dollar appropriation every year from several sources that funds all the many programs of state government. So it’s not a matter of finding a new source of money for each new program, it’s a matter of establishing some priorities, making decisions and fitting it in to our resources.

PRESS: I wonder if I can characterize your position on this and you tell me if I have it right or wrong. You have lukewarm support for the bill, but you would not support ANY taxing source for it?

DOUGLAS: Well, I certainly don’t see the need for any taxing source.  And let me cycle back, at the risk of sounding too defensive, and offer more of an answer to Peter’s question.

I don’t accept the  notion that I’m not “walking the walk.”

I saw a bunch of folks from special-interest groups holding a press conference out in front of the Federal Building (in Burlington) a week or two ago in connection with the lawsuit there (U.S. automakers are suing Vermont for adopting tougher tailpipe emission standards).

That was my administration that adopted the tough California auto-emission standards. That wasn’t the legislature. That wasn’t some special interest group. That was my administration that adopted those tough standards that are being challenged.

The defendant in the lawsuit is George Crombie, the secretary of Natural Resources. That was my decision. My walk!

That and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative the other lawsuits that I’ve initiated, the savings we’re achieving in state government. The Climate Change Commission that has objectives for reducing emissions that are very similar to some of the ones that I’ve heard being discussed by private organizations, was my initiative and I feel very good about the steps I’ve taken.

There are a lot of companies who’ve done well and we’re pleased that they do. It just seems to me we don’t need to keep thinking about new ways to tax Vermonters and Vermont companies when we’re trying to improve the prospects for our economic future to attract more investment and capital here. These Democratic lawmakers just keep thinking of more taxes and that’s not what we need when we’re #1 in America.

Next year we'll spend about $4.7 billion in Vermont. I think we can find some resources within that very large amount of money without some new tax if this is a priority.

He's good isn't he?

Entergy's damn lucky to have him.

Nobody around here "talks the talk" any better than Jim Douglas.

That may, in part, explain why King James, a Republican serving his third term as governor, remains an almost prohibitive favorite to win a fourth term in 2008.

Vermont Democrats want to "walk the walk." Good for them!

But they'll need to improve their "talking" skills before they'll ever achieve that goal.

Comments

[RH factor]

Geez Same thing different Day.

[JPC]

You have to be kidding? I know you are a liberal Peter but open your eyes and mind. The Dem's are walking the walk alright, right off the edge of sanity. What does Chumplin's proposal accomplish? He renigs on a deal with the Vermont Yankee that basically sends a statement to all businesses present and future that the State of Vermont is an autonomous entity that will not honor its agreements. That is sure incentive enough to come to Vermont. Secondly, Douglas is right, we can't keep taxing the people of this state, business or the public. It creates very low moral for one thing. Why cant the Dems live with in a budget? Why do they think the need to have their cake and eat it too? Prioritize, get rid of some of these money draining social programs that don't work, if they want to create more. If they keep coddling the public then they have on created a bunch of dependent babies. I hope the next election sends a message "as left of center as this state is, it can no longer continue afford the spend-happy ineffective, emotion ruled Dems" Give them a veto proof majority and look what they have accomplished. Bernie would be proud.

[c'mon Peter]

You are unbelievable Peter. Did Shumlin help you write this or did you do it on your own? Amazing that you fail to even acknowledge the idiocy of taxing a non-emitting source of power to combat global warming.

And Peter, if you subscribe to the 10-years-to-fix-everything-or-we-all-die argument (I don't), aren't these solutions kinda small and silly? Are we really going to save the planet from certain doom by helping folks get new windows and more insulation in the attic? If the world was spiralling toward certain doom, shouldn't more extreme measures be taken, such as banning the internal combustion engine and all CO2 emissions?

[simon says]

"Give them a veto proof majority and look what they have accomplished"

A lack of accomplishment means no veto proof majority. Stop thinking in binary. There's no such thing as veto proof.

[sandy ward]

Douglas is right on this one. If the democrats want to create a new tax. Tax and regulate marijuana...let me pay tax!!!

[Sally Shaw]

While Governor Douglas shills for Entergy, Governor Spitzer in New York, not falling for NRC or Entergy doublespeak, demands a truly Independent Safety Assessment for the Indian Point nuclear facility. Would that the smooth-talking Douglas cared as much about the health, safety, and genetic health of future Vermonters as he does about bidness interests. Would that he would stand up for Vermonters like New York's Governor stands up for the citizens of New York. New taxes are an easy target for an insincere politician who loves to rile up the knee-jerk, right-wing wing dings. However, Minnesotans (not your typical tax and spenders) demanded a very high fee and very strict siting rules for dry cask storage of high level nuclear waste in their state. Governor Douglas's Public Service Board settled for bargain basement casks and minimally secure storage of our Vermont-made superfund-eligible waste, sited it in the 100-year flood zone of the CT River, 300 yards from an elementary school, and approved the increased production and storage of even hotter radioactive waste for the next five years-to-eternity. They made these decisions based on a grossly overstated supposed economic benefit to Vermont ratepayers that ignores the real risks of running a moribund reactor at 120%, and the health and economic consequences to future generations of ratepayers. While I don't believe it is wise to fund Legislators' pet programs with money from a company you'd prefer to see leave the state (it has an unfortunate effect on the decisionmaking ability of the Public Service Board), assessing steep fees/taxes for the priviledge of CREATING and permanently storing the most toxic substances on the face of the earth are not only appropriate, they should have been a pre-requisite. Too bad the tax is only chump change for Entergy, and won't affect their bottom line enough to make them leave. Or would Gov. Douglas like to market Entergy's Vermont-made nuclear waste as a "resource", ala Patrick Moore? Vermont could become number one in the country for "green" nuclear waste production, and provide great killing material for the military industrial complex besides. I can see the logo now....

[Lizzie]

Do you really think there are many politicians - of any stripe - who walk the talk when it comes to the environment? OK. With the exception of Ralph Nader.

I would love it if, instead of a debate, we lined all of the presidential hopefuls up in one room, pointed a camera at them and simply said: "Show of hands please. Who has cut their personal consumption of energy in the past 5 years?" "Anybody?" *tap, tap on the mic* "Testing,testing....can everyone hear me?"

The lights on Al Gore's mansions shine brightly (and likely without the help of compact florescent bulbs) while he dismisses it with some crap about paying extra for renewable energy credits. Hell, he can afford to put some solar panels on his roof and erect a nice wind generator and buy a nice, compact hybrid. He could certainly use less energy as he asks of all of us. Money talks but it doesn't walk.

You're one of the good examples, Peter. You pedal your heiney all over town and you don't drive a guzzler so you're one guy who does have some room to talk about the issue. But you need to take off the donkey blinders and see that they ALL need to be held accountable. The traditional belief that Democrats are pro environment and Republicans are anti environment ain't necessarily so, brother.

We need to hold ALL of our elected officials up to a new standard. They not only need to walk the talk but they need to lead by personal example.

And taxes? More taxes? Again, money just talks and gets wasted when we pour it into the government. We're taxed to death and see little benefit for all that we pay. We throw money at every problem and assume it will be solved. This crisis needs so much more personal and corporate attention than that!

[Liane Allen]

Efficiency Vermont has done a fabulous job of both reducing consumption and saving money for Vermonters. There's an old adage: "It takes money to make money."

By taking some money from each electric bill, Efficiency Vermont has been able to turn around and invest in efficiency measures that have saved us all even more $$ on our electric bills, by keeping demand down. (It would cost far more now than it does if they had not been helping keep demand growth in check. Just ask the rest of New England rate payers).

All this bill would do is increase the investment in cost saving measures - helping us all in the long run. The Governor loves to make lots of noise about his piddling, too-little, too-late initiatives, but is too timid to take responsibility for the smart, bold initiatives that would make a much bigger difference for all of us.

Whoop-dee-doo, he adopted another state's policy. Good for him. But guess what? The other state was the one willing to take the lead. If Governor Does-Less had been running California, there would never have been a lower emissions standard for Vermont to copy-cat. He is great at waiting for others to lead, then taking credit for daring to follow.

We need a Governor who is not afraid to lead Vermont into the future, not one who will leave us foraging for the crumbs of the coming alternative-energy economy, playing "catch-up" and "me too" when we could have led the industry.

[Lawrence Auclair]

"Economist John Kenneth Galbraith once said that "nothing so measures progress as a few screams of anguish from the very rich." If that is the case, the screams of anguish by Entergy and Douglas over Shumlin's proposal is an indication that perhaps his idea is a good one."

-- from Brattleboro Reformer Editorial, April 28, "VY surtax passes scream test"

http://reformer.com/editorials/ci_5772135

[Evan]

Thank you Peter for reporting this; and thank you to Sally and Lawrence for your comments.

S-94 was a good bill as it was. I'm sure the business interests lobbied as hard against Efficiency Vermont when it was proposed. The Senate and the Governor should not have capitulated to the fuel industry over S-94.

That said, I would argue that Entergy should be taxed, regardless, for the privilege of running Vermont Yankee in Vermont; for the privilege of poisoning the air, soil and water; for the privilege of storing deadly hazardous waste in our state for (in all likelihood) the next half century; and for the privilege of dumping hot water into the Connecticut River all year.

Lest we forget, the power generated by the Uprate was not needed then by Vermonters, and is not needed now. Much of the power generated by the reactor is for the benefit of users in NH and MA.