An Open Letter to Some Democratic Lawmakers from a Fellow Democrat

Sad (4.00 / 3)

It's a sad, sad state of affairs when "leaders" have to be urged to protect people from horrific, traumatizing, deadly afflictions such as cancer not because they are horrific, traumatizing, and deadly, but because not to will affect their election prospects down the road.

"GMD's once proud libertarian-socialist"

---

by: wdh3 @ Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 01:19:00 AM UTC

Hey (4.00 / 1)

Whatever it takes.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 01:22:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hey (0.00 / 0)

I'm not blaming the messenger; just noting the underlying atrocity.

"GMD's once proud libertarian-socialist"

---

by: wdh3 @ Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 02:27:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Please tell me the leg is not making noises about "pragmatism" (0.00 / 0)

1) They plan to RAISE RATES above the New England grid rate, so relisencing offers no monetary benefit to Vermonters.

2) The amount of power provided by the plant can be easily supplanted by simple efficiency measures (like installing compact fluorescent bulbs), which we should be doing, anyway.

3) They LIED. On MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. About IMPORTANT things, and thus cannot be trusted.

4) With the current leak, they have proved that they are either INCOMPETENT or CROOKED. (Given their penchant for lying, I'm guessing the latter, but have no proof. It would not surprise me in the least if they were delaying the "discovery" of the source of the leak until after relisencing, at which point they can procure cleanup and repair funds at a lower interest rate, thus reserving more for executives' pay.)

5) They are UNDERFUNDED, and are attempting to "Fairpoint-ize" by rolling all the costs into a shell corporation which will fail, declare bankruptcy, and leave Vermonters (you know, the ones who VOTE) to foot the cleanup bill.

The company deserves exactly NOTHING from Vermont, except a fond farewell, and a very big stick to ensure they clean up after themselves before they vacate the premises.

The legislature had better not capitulate to the weasels in suits who have descended upon the statehouse wielding promises to grease palms fill campaign warchests in exchange for a favorable vote.  In times past, that was called corruption, and it won't go un-noticed.

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 04:25:42 AM UTC

I'm Ready to Vote (4.00 / 7)

My most recent statement on VY is here:
http://dougracine.com/news/pre...
-Doug

---

by: Doug Racine @ Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 13:11:04 PM UTC

Voters aren't in the middle (4.00 / 2)

It seems that the people -- at least the "likely to vote for a Democrat" people -- are already NOT in the middle. A look at how many politically-engaged Democrats are participating in forums and organizing conversations about closing Vt. Yankee suggests that Democratic voters are disproportionately in favor of closing the plant as scheduled.

Groups like VPIRG, which has a lot of direct contact with members who must be likely Dem voters, are hearing MANY of those people say the plant is unsafe and Entergy can't be trusted.

I don't think legislators will be making any friends  by trying to "play the middle" between those voters and the out-of-state utility executives at Entergy.

---

by: MattH @ Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 17:55:58 PM UTC

I don't know what kind of conversations are taking place over there in Montpelier, (4.00 / 1)

but I spoke informally with a couple of legislators (sorry, no names) and they both seem to be under the impression that, if they just "sit tight," Vermont Yankee is about to throw-in the towel themselves.  The fact that more than one person expressed this same perspective leads me to believe that someone has made a deliberate point of giving this impression.  If that is the case, some of our legislators who think their constituents are on the fence, may be inclined to avoid a potentially damaging vote.

'Just thought I'd toss that into the mix!

---

by: Sue Prent @ Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 18:12:37 PM UTC

Different Interpretation (4.00 / 1)

I spoke to a legislator today who said three times, "You don't have to worry about this one," meaning a vote to approve relicensing. His explanation was that it was going to be handled in the Senate, and if some senator with aspirations to higher office (nudge, wink) were to call for a vote, that vote would likely be NO, and the matter ends there. He also said that in the House, the consideration is that if/when the electric rates "go up by a penny," constituents and Republicans would be screaming bloody murder at every Rep. who voted no, so "let the Senate handle it, let this play out."

I raised the objection that if the Senate did NOT handle it, and it carried over to the 2011 session, the make up of the legislature might be vastly different, thanks to funding of campaigns by Entergy. He didn't think that was a worry.

NanuqFC
In a Time of Universal Deceit, TELLING the TRUTH Is a Revolutionary Act. - George Orwell  

---

by: NanuqFC @ Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 00:45:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Great. (4.00 / 1)

I sure hope all these rocket scientists know what they're doing!

---

by: Sue Prent @ Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 01:59:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Legislative opportunities (4.00 / 2)

I wanted to also let folks know about other, more subtle Entergy issues going on.  While I am more than ready to vote no (to their continued operation), we also have two more years of this plant.

Since they have been subsidized at every turn, we will be on the hook for god knows how much $$$ in the long run.

However, thanks to the Governer, we (the House Ways and Means Committee) learned of one area they have been getting a subsidy.  In their thermal discharges to the river.

There is a permit whose charge is based on the design capacity for thermal discharges (Entergy, McNeil, other power sources using water to cool their systems).  The current rate is $0.0009 per gallon of daily design flow with a cap of $27,500 per year.  The Administration proposal in the fee bill was to raise the rate to $0.001 per gallon with a new cap of $60,000.  Upon investigation we learned that only one plant hits the cap...guess which one?  You got it...Entergy.  With a design flow of up to 534,000,000 gallons per day, their fee would be $534,000 per year (not the cap of $60,000).   Many of us on the committee supported the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee recommendation to remove the cap.  But a compromise was voted on at $210,000 (leaving over $300,000 in Entergy's coffers).  One of their lobbyists even bragged to me that he would be reporting back to them that he "saved" them $300K. (He was joking, but it was still a victory for Entergy not to have to pay the full freight considering their place in the public eye these days).

As we neared the final vote, we even learned that the 1 degree Supreme Court ruling (relating to thermal discharges...the flow covered by this exact permit), will actually save Entergy approximately $1.3 million per year!  Not sure why we could not recoup just over a third of that for environmental conservation?

While we moved in a good direction, I am hopeful that we will see the cap lifted before the fee bill becomes law.

---

by: David Zuckerman @ Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 01:53:17 AM UTC

Strong Message / Unwise Tactic (0.00 / 0)

I don't disagree with your strong message advising legislators that there are very long-term consequences to their potential vote on whether to approve relicensing of the Entergy VY plant.

But (and you knew there would be one), I think your tactic is unwise. Few people, whether in the legislature or not, respond well to threats. And I have a few questions.

First, who is the "we" who will "see to" there being primary opponents?

Second, have you actually tried recruiting legislative candidates lately? I have, and they're not exactly thick on the ground or hanging low in the trees. They'd have to put their jobs and lives on hold for at least 6 months per year, more in election years. They'd be signing up to ask their friends and neighbors for significant cash contributions for a campaign they might not win. And if they win, they're getting a job where they need to respond to irate tax payer phone calls at all hours of the day and night, or comments in the grocery store, at their kid's games, at the dump.  They don't have the resources they need (no offices or staff) to do the job they were elected to do, and they can't trust their main sources of information -- lobbyists. They spend non-session time in countless, endless meetings, at early-dark-thirty breakfasts, at rubber chicken dinners, and more fundraisers. And for all this, they get a license plate, a parking space, and a stipend, not a paycheck. They are routinely pilloried in the press and vilified in the blogs.

And yes, there are upsides to serving in the legislature. There's the sense of "giving back" to your neighbors and to the state by doing part of the heavy lifting, trying your best to understand the issues and somehow combine your best judgment and your constituents' wishes. There's the feeling of wanting to make this corner of the world a better place, to keep what's good, dump or ban what's bad, and explore what's next for what could be even better. There's the heady feeling of taking up your share of the responsibility for making the state work -- one one-hundred-eightieth of it. And there's a certain camaraderie that works in concert with an amazement at how personalities and pragmatism play out in pursuit of personal visions of Vermont.

Oh yeah, and then there's the receptions and parties and booze for those who partake.

And still, legislative candidates are not clamoring at the gates, even when there's a hot issue to react to and campaign on.

A different and possibly more effective approach would be before a vote to personally and publicly commit to work hard -- and recruit/organize others to do likewise -- on the campaigns of those who vote the way you think they should.

You know, accentuate the positive.

Could work.

NanuqFC
The time is always right to do the right thing. ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: NanuqFC @ Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 03:35:50 AM UTC

quick response (4.00 / 1)

1. "we" = me and people who feel similarly.

2. Not talking about legislative races. The letter refers to those Senators who might run for statewide office, and it refers to statewide races.

3. I disagree that it is unwise. It's very much how I feel about this.

4. Working "against" a candidate usually does, in fact, mean working hard "for" another. But the "positive" was just not what this letter was about.

I stand by the letter's content 110%.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 04:11:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]