Annual Survey Finds Support for VY's Relicensure in 2012

Tweet

It's official: By a slim margin, Vermonters believe that Vermont Yankee should be relicensed in 2012. That's the key finding from this year's annual Doyle Survey, an unscientific snapshot of opinions collected on Town Meeting Day.

State Sen. Bill Doyle (R-Washington) — for whom the survey is named — collected roughly 15,000 surveys from 142 towns and cities.

"The results on the Vermont Yankee question this year was probably the closest of of any question," Doyle told Seven Days. It is also a sharp turnaround from preliminary results issued earlier this month. At that time, about 47 percent of respondents said they wanted VY closed in 2012, 40 percent wanted it relicensed and 12 percent weren't sure.

Now, with the results finalized VY supporters top opponents. Of those who filled out the survey, 45 percent wanted VY relicensed, 41 percent do not and 14 percent are unsure.

Last year, only 31 percent of respondents wanted VY relicensed. Perhaps the news coverage of those tritium leaks had something to do with public sentiment?

Illustration credit: Tim Newcomb

Doyle has conducted this unscientific survey of residents across Vermont for more than 40 years.

As was evident in the early returns, the survey found big support for expanding the bottle bill, keeping the state's motorcycle helmet law intact and banning the use of cellphones will driving. Those who filled out the survey also said there should be tougher penalties for repeat DUI offenders.

Respondents also said they'd be willing to pay more for local food and renewable energy.

Of those who filled out surveys, 43 percent "have confidence" in Gov. Peter Shumlin while 30 percent do not and 27 percent aren't sure.

Here are the full results:

1. Should  Vermont Yankee's license be renewed in 2012?

Yes: 45%

No: 41%

Unsure: 14%

2. Should drivers be prohibited from using cellphones while driving?

Yes: 75%

No: 19%

Unsure: 6%

3. Should Vermont legalize physician-assisted suicide?

Yes: 50%

No: 37%

Unsure: 13%

4. Should Vermont have a four-year term for governor?

Yes: 61%

No: 28%

Unsure: 11%

5. Should there be a mandatory minimum sentence for repeat DUI offenders?

Yes: 79%

No: 12%

Unsure: 9%

6. Should Vermonters be required to buy health insurance?

Yes: 31%

No: 50%

Unsure: 19%

7. Do you have confidence in Governor Shumlin?

Yes: 43%

No: 30%

Unsure: 27%

8. Should Vermont continue to require the use of motorcycle helmets?

Yes: 90%

No: 8%

Unsure: 2%

9. Should law enforcement personnel be permitted to use Tasers?

Yes: 56%

No: 24%

Unsure: 20%

10. Should Vermont's legislature encourage bicycling and walking?

Yes: 71%

No: 18%

Unsure: 11%

11. Should Vermont's bottle deposit law be expanded to include all bottled beverages?

Yes: 79%

No: 14%

Unsure: 7%

12. Are you willing to pay more for locally grown food?

Yes: 63%

No: 26%

Unsure: 11%

13. In order to encourage wind, solar and other renewable energy sources, are you willing to pay higher prices?

Yes: 45%

No: 39%

Unsure: 16%

 

Comments

[cb]

How do "It's official" and "an unscientific snapshot of opinions" end up in the same paragraph, describing the same phenomenon?
Official, according to whom? Issued by what office or organization?
Sheesh.

[reelvermonter]

Why does 7 Days continue to give ink to "surveys" that are not surveys and thus provide them with a degree of credibility? This is all nonsense at best. Sort of like, "Who is the most crooked politician?" Get some smarts!!

[Drew Campbell]

I agree with CB...Come on Shay; I thought you were a better journalist than this! You can't say "It's official [that] Vermonters believe..." when you're also admitting that the survey is unscientific. The only thing that's official is that this is the result of the survey, not that "Vermonters believe...".

[Drew Campbell]

You mention that this poll is unscientific, but fail to provide any in-depth analysis of the issue. For one, you should mention the results of polls that ARE scientific. I know of two such polls last year: one by Research 2000 that found only 24 percent of Vermonters believe VY should be relicensed, and one by ORC that found 68 percent of Vermont residents would support closure of VY in 2012 “assuming that a combination of increased energy efficiency, clean energy, [etc] could be used to offset the electricity from the reactor.” I don't believe popular opinion has swayed so drastically in the past year as the Doyle Poll results suggest. Perhaps 7 Days could commission a scientific study to find out the truth! You should also mention the demographic considerations of Doyle's poll. It is generally completed by people who attend Town Meeting (which unfortunately many younger people don't) and the sample only consists of those who voluntarily take the time to participate in this Republican Senator's unscientific survey. I believe these are all very important considerations, and would expect 7 Days to provide better in-depth reporting that considered these things instead of just briefly mentioning it's "unscientific".

[murphy]

Ah, yes. Shay's piece was posted at 12:33. It took all of one hour for all the anti-VY whiners to start protesting against the survey because they don't like what it says.

The language cited by Campbell from the ORC poll certainly sounds like a push-poll to me. An unbiased poll simply asks the question of whether VY should be relicensed and does not suggest the desired answer by adding "assumptions."

I'll approach it from the opposite direction: In the very second sentence, Shay calls the survey "an unscientific snapshot." My opinion? If the results had shown an anti-relicensing majority, would he have taken pains to point out -- immediately after stating the results -- the "unscientific-ness" of the survey?

[Srat123]

Calling Doyle's campaign literature a survey is an insult to surveys. That's why Barre will be banning them from future polls. Wonder if there are plans to see how Doyle's questions matched up to ultimate reality. Have his results ever been fact-checked?

In fairness to Shay, he put Vermont Yankee on the map when running the Vermont Guardian. Before the rest of us knew that Vermont Yankee wasn't a new Ben & Jerry's flavor, Shay was reporting on their skulduggery and regular nose-thumbing at regulators and the PSB.

[Murphy]

“assuming that a combination of increased energy efficiency, clean energy, [etc] could be used to offset the electricity from the reactor.”

C'mon, that is totally a push-poll. First of all, nobody is suggesting that "increased energy efficiency and clean energy" can, in fact, suddenly replace the 300+ MW we now get annually from VY. Second, what exactly does "clean" energy mean?

"the sample only consists of those who voluntarily take the time to participate in this Republican Senator's unscientific survey."

As opposed to what, the much smaller number of people who take the time to take a phone survey?

I agree with you: the Doyle survey is not representative: if anything, it probably overstates the percentage of people who oppose relicensure, because people who go to town meetings are activists.

[Bungalow Benchly]

Point of clarification: Murphy says, "If the results had shown an anti-relicensing majority, would he have taken pains to point out -- immediately after stating the results -- the "unscientific-ness" of the survey?"

To answer your question, Murphy, yes, Shay would have pointed out the "unscientific-ness" of the survey. Check out the March 10 Doyle Survey posting, when only 34 towns had reported thus far. At that point, 47% of the voters said VY should NOT have its license renewed (40% said it should), and in the post, Shay said, "Doyle has conducted this unscientific survey of residents across Vermont for more than 40 years."

[rcarter]

Keep it online. We need cheap juice.

[tangle wood]

I agree with several of the previous posters--reporting the results of a shoddy survey is shoddy journalism. unfortunately, 7 days doesn't seem to understand this, as they often report results from improperly conducted surveys.

as has been pointed out, we don't know if the sample in the town hall survey is representative of adult vermonters. no effort was made to get a representative sample, or assess non-response bias. the survey is the caliber of the silly sex survey done by 7 days.

i really enjoy 7 days and i think they mostly do a great job bringing information to their readers, but if they want to do a survey, they should hire someone that knows how to conduct one. else, they should not report results of shoddy surveys, as the results are meaningless at best, and often mis-leading.

[murphy]

@ survey-whiners:

Whether it qualifies as a scientific "survey" or not, the results of the Doyle questionnaire are NEWS. Get it? Insisting that 7D or any Vermont media NOT report the annual results of a long-lived institution like the Doyle survey because it's not statistically-valid is just petulant. Get over it. You're all suddenly complaining about the "unscientificness" of the survey because it doesn't show a majority in favor of shuttiong down VY. Too bad.

@ BB:

"Check out the March 10 Doyle Survey posting, when only 34 towns had reported thus far. At that point, 47% of the voters said VY should NOT have its license renewed . . ."

Your comment begs the question: why did Shay report the results when only 34 towns had reported? I'll wager it was because he was happy to report what he thought was the anti-VY result. Turns out it was a case of premature elation.

At least he had the decency to report the final results.

[Daniel Barlow]

I'm really shocked at the anti-Doyle comments here ... I don't agree with all of the results in these year's survey, but Sen. Doyle is the definition of a civil servant in Vermont. Distributing, collecting and compiling the Doyle Poll each year is a massive undertaking.

[reelvermonter]

"Distributing, collecting and compiling the Doyle Poll each year is a massive undertaking." This may be true; however such an exercise is not the definition of a public servant. Furthermore the comments are not anti-Doyle, just anti poor survey/poll mechanics. If 7 Days, or anyone, wants to survey/poll the voters of Vermont at least do so in a manner that is reasonably reflective of good polling techniques. More importantly, it is time to stop giving credibility to an exercise that defies best polling practices. Suggesting that the Doyle Poll or the 7 Days annual "poll" has standing is crazy.

[murphy]

Reelvermonter, thanks for pointing out the obvious. Everybody knows that the earth is round, Kiss is secretly a great Mayor, and the Doyle poll is not a statistically valid survey. Even 7D knows this. But in case you haven't noticed, 7D is NOT the Atlantic Monthly. Whether it's a valid survey or not, the results of the Doyle poll are still news, ok? You want serious, scholarly journalism with statistically-valid polls? Look elsewhere, dude. You want Vermont political gossip, left-slanted reporting with a superior-chic attitude, and a shill for the Progs? 7D is your place. You sound like you're still smarting that 7D reported what people really think of Shumlin in Montpelier. And BTW, I'm sure you and all the survey-sticklers on this thread blow right past the 7D annual sex survey each year in high minded fashion without deigning to read it because, well, it AINT a scientific survey, right? I'm sure you don't read the letters to the editor each week in 7D or the Freeps because, darn it, those letters are not a statistically-valid feedback gauge! And I'm sure you don't listen to call-in shows like Switchboard or Vermont Edition or the Mark Johnson Show because we have no way of knowing if the callers represent a valid cross-section of listener thought, right?

Ultimately, there is only one truly valid poll. It's called an election. Everything else is at best interesting.

[John Greenberg]

Murphy writes: "“assuming that a combination of increased energy efficiency, clean energy, [etc] could be used to offset the electricity from the reactor.”

C'mon, that is totally a push-poll. First of all, nobody is suggesting that "increased energy efficiency and clean energy" can, in fact, suddenly replace the 300+ MW we now get annually from VY."

I'll take the bait. I've been writing and speaking to legislators and interested parties about closing VY for the last 2 years, and I have proposed exactly what Murphy says "nobody is suggesting."

More precisely, the proposal is to bring the efficiency programs for the whole state of Vermont up to(at least) the same level which is currently being achieved in the areas of the state targeted because of transmission issues, and then to purchase the remainder of the power from in-state renewable generators. I specifically chose a VERY low number for efficiency to be ultra-conservative. Since that number is already being achieved in some areas, it would be difficult to argue that it can't be achieved in ALL areas. In fact, studies show that much higher savings are possible.

VPIRG issued a similar proposal two years ago.

[one_vermonter]

"I'm really shocked at the anti-Doyle comments here"

Dan, none of the comments above are "anti-Doyle". People are smply pointing out that the methodology employed by this survey makes the results unreliable.

It isn't about Bill Doyle. It is about his survey.

Do I point this out becaue I disagree with the poll's results ? No, because I don't disagree with all of the poll's results. Some results are favorable to my positions and some are not.

It's not a good survey. Never has been. The methodology isn't condusive to an accurate results.

The media in this state report on this 'survey' every single year ... but they never describe just how 'unscientific' it is!

[Murphy]

I take it back. One unrealistic crank IS suggesting that we can suddenly replace the 300+ MW we now get annually from VY with energy efficiency and "clean energy." Of course, "clean energy" remains undefined by Campbell, and it's anyone's guess as to whether "clean" includes environmentally-controversial sources such as HQ, which, until last year was NOT defined as renewable and had to be hurriedly redefined as "renewable" to fit Shumlin's anti-VY campaign. And the VPIRG report GreenQuixote cites was widely dismissed as either a naive fantasy or an intentionally misleading document.

Oy.

[John Greenberg]

Murphy writes: 'the VPIRG report GreenQuixote [that would be me, I assume] cites was widely dismissed..." By whom exactly? And on what basis? I've seen one critique, by Willem Post, which, as I pointed out to him in an exchange of emails, grossly distorts the report, imputing to it things it clearly did NOT say and completely ignoring things it just as clearly DID say. Accordingly, that critique has no credibility whatever. I have no brief to defend VPIRG's work; they'll do that for themselves, but Murphy's statement cries out for some sourcing and documentation.

As to the rest, let's begin with this. Vermont doesn't buy "300+ MW" from VY. The current figure is somewhere between 265 and 280 MW, depending on where you source the figure. In any case, both CVPS and GMP made it clear, during their negotiations with Entergy, that they wanted to buy LESS power from VY going forward in order to diversify their portfolios. GMP released its figures publicly; CVPS refused to characterize their desired purchase beyond saying that it would be smaller.

My best guess, based on conversations with both utilities, was that, between them, they were looking for around 225 MW going forward from VY. That's the figure I set out to fulfill without VY. (And I would point out that, as it emerged, Entergy only offered 115 MW of VY power in the new contract in any case).

Let me pause here to note that, in 2007, Jim Douglas's Department of Public Service published a study showing that, by 2015, 19% of Vermont's electrical energy could be saved, and that such a project would save almost $1 billion. 19%, expressed in MW, would have amounted to 225 MW, or more or less the equivalent of ALL of the power to be purchased from VY after 2012. But I didn't want to take "credit" for so bold a plan.

At the time I wrote the plan in 2008, Energy Efficiency Vermont was displacing roughly 2% of Vermont's energy demand per year statewide, and about 4% in the target areas of the state. So instead, I asserted that we could achieve that extra 2% savings statewide (i.e. 4%), which would displace 15 MW per year, or 60 MW by 2012. That would leave 165 MW.

The remainder could feasibly be generated in-state by a combination of renewables projects, including wind turbines, biomass plants, solar installations, efficiency improvements to existing hydro project, landfill and farm methane projects, etc. David O'Brien's DPS, no doubt another bunch of "unrealistic cranks" according to Murphy put together one such portfolio in their testimony to the legislature and Public Service Board.

The problems with bringing renewable sources online in Vermont in a timely fashion are NOT technical, but political. And the audience for whom I was writing were the very people (legislators) who could have decided to change the political/regulatory landscape if they wished.

Besides my plan, DPS's and VPIRG's, there are many other options as well. As it turns out, the utilities ARE making deals to replace VY's power with a variety of options which include out-of-state renewables. (E.g. on Feb. 17, 2010, the utilities announced contracts for up to 100 MW of power.)

Finally, while just about ANY energy source is controversial these days, neither VPIRG, nor DPS, nor I relied on HQ as a source, since that source already supplies a major portion of Vermont's load. Speaking for myself, I, like the folks at CVPS, believe that our energy portfolio needs to be MORE diversified, not less so.

[murphy]

"The problems with bringing renewable sources online in Vermont in a timely fashion are NOT technical, but political. And the audience for whom I was writing were the very people (legislators) who could have decided to change the political/regulatory landscape if they wished."

Indulging you for a moment in your assertion that the obstacles to your plan are political, as opposed to technical, what you and all the other renewable-energy-fantasists refuse to recognize is that political obstacles are just as real, if not moreso, than technical ones. Unless you think that the Vermont legislature will not only exempt power plants from zoning and permitting and Act 248/250 review, but also waive a magic wand and outlaw private NIMBY and nuisance lawsuits against siting power plants anywhere in VT, then your scenario is irrational.

[John Greenberg]

So now I've gone from "unrealistic crank" to just being "irrational." That's progress, I suppose.

"Unless you think that the Vermont legislature will not only exempt power plants from zoning and permitting and Act 248/250 review, but also waive a magic wand..."

Actually, what I think is this. Despite the totally baseless hysteria over alternatives to VY implied in your previous statements (which have been low on facts and high on name-calling), the legislature had the good sense to realize that none of these measures would be required.

The testimony showed that there are actually a plethora of perfectly realistic scenarios available in the absence of Vermont Yankee. Therefore, there is no need for draconian changes in the law, since there is absolutely no emergency to confront. Had there been one, however, such changes are far from unthinkable: what legislatures create, legislatures can put aside.

So, what I think, since you appear to ask, is that Vermont Yankee will close, as scheduled, by March of next year; in fact, probably before that. The lights will not flicker. Electric bills will not climb precipitously.

Given the lack of any impending crisis, no one will really push hard enough for energy efficiency. That's too bad, because it means that we will continue to waste both financial and natural resources. In other words, the possibilities discussed in my plan are likely to be only very partially realized, and the the far better, far more radical savings that I really believe are achievable will continue to go untapped until there is some kind of crisis. (That, unfortunately, is the American way).

Meanwhile, however, Vermonters, being Vermonters, will continue to propose renewable energy projects, which other Vermonters will continue to contest, at least the bigger ones. Some of these efforts will no doubt succeed in blocking some of the projects, but not all of them.

To the extent yet more power is needed, the utilities will buy it out-of-state, just as we all do the fuel that propels our cars.

Eventually, however, over time, Vermont will emerge with a cleaner, less polluting energy portfolio, though not as clean or as cheap as would have been the case had we pursued energy efficiency far more aggressively.

[murphy]

Yeah, good luck with that semi-happy scenario.

In fact, starting pretty soon, my own electric bill, which already has gone up substantially over the last year or so due to rate increases, will now include a $.55 "clean energy development fund" surcharge that used to be paid by VY.

[Bob Stannard]

I'm a little late to the party, but it should be noted that the Doyle Poll was done before the nuclear meltdown in Japan. As radiation is leaking from the plants and creating the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl, do we really think that the poll results, as unofficial as they are, would still be the same?

[murphy]

@ 7D:

The headline on this posting is misleading. "Finds Support For" could be ANY fraction of the poll results. For example, the same headline would be accurate if only 10 percent of the respondents had favored relicensure. What this survey did was find that a plurality, or the largest percentage of those declaring a preference, supported relicensure.

If the percentages had been reversed, you can bet the headline wouldn't have been, "Survey Finds Support for VY Closure." It would have said, "Plurality Wants VY Shut Down," or "Largest Percentage of Respondents Wants VY Shut Down."

@ Stannard:

Thank God for that meltdown in Japan, huh?