by vtdigger.org Proponents in the Legislature of a cash payment for ratepayers in a utility merger between Green Mountain Power and Central Vermont Public Service Corp. gained a small victory last week.
On the House floor Thursday, Rep. Michael Marcotte asked that a bill that has been sitting in the House Appropriations committee be returned to its original committee, the House Commerce and Economic Development committee, for further discussion. A number of lawmakers support attaching the proposal to H. 718, which deals with miscellaneous issues regarding the Department of Public Service and Public Service Board.
Four representatives who support a proposal by the AARP that the utilities give ratepayers cash as a result of a windfall-sharing mechanism that was triggered by the merger met with House Speaker Shap Smith early last week.
Rep. Cynthia Browning said it was a minor victory.
â I think this is a sign they feel the issue needs to have further discussion,’she said. â But I think itâ s unlikely the bill will come out and have a debate on the floor.â
Browning tried to offer the amendment to this yearâ s energy bill, but Smith said it was not germane, and the House did not debate it.
H. 718 has been the prime target for an amendment that would allow for a vote because it is more relevant to the underlying bill.
The issue continues to stir controversy in the Statehouse as the Senate has discussed passing some sort of bill to require the utilities to pay ratepayers the $21 million they are required to share in cash rather than by using it to invest in an efficiency fund where utility shareholders will be able to recoup the money.
Lt. Gov. Phil Scott, who is president of the Senate, said last week he supports a proposal to reopen the negotiations between the Shumlin administration and the utilities to ensure ratepayers get the money instead of allowing the utilities to recoup it through higher rates in the future.
The proposal is a continuance of a policy created in the Douglas administration where the board approved a similar measure in 2007 when Gaz Metro acquired Green Mountain Power. Under both proposals, the utilities would fulfill their sharing obligations by investing the money and creating benefits through weatherization and efficiency that would benefit ratepayers.
~ Alan Panebaker
Senate Natural Resources says â Noâ ‘to fracking, sort of
Senate Natural Resources unanimously approved an amendment to H. 464 on hydraulic fracturing to entirely prohibit the extraction process in Vermont until it can be conducted without risk of contaminating the stateâ s groundwater.
The blanket prohibition came in the form of a strike-all amendment from Sen. Ginny Lyons, D-Williston, to the original House version of the bill, which called for a prohibition on permits for injection wells used in recovering natural gas or oil.
The amended resolution retains the same restriction on well permits for fracking discharge, and also calls for an annual report from the Secretary of State on changes to the extraction process.
Though Vermont only has a small amount of natural gas in the northwest and southern part of the state, Lyons said that the bill would still have an impact on the state.
â It will keep fracking waste from being transported and deposited in this state,’she said. Vermont is on the edge of two major shale deposits, the Utica shale formation in Canada and the Marcellus shale formation that runs through New York and Pennsylvania.
The committee discussed different alternatives from a moratorium to an outright ban, before settling on a prohibition.
Sen. Joe Benning, R-Lyndonville, explained that the measure would still leave a door open to business, though only if the stateâ s groundwater could be protected.
â It sends a signal to businesses who may be able to demonstrate safe system otherwise afraid to come to Vermont because of outright ban if they can demonstrate safety and doesnâ t have impact on drinking water,’Benning said.
However, Benning said, the small amount of natural gas in Vermont makes the discussion mostly theoretical.
â Thereâ s no demonstrated need we need fracking in Vermont ‘so the discussion is moot,’he said.
~ Erin Hale
Biomass to be studied
The Senate Natural Resources committee voted to study a tiered system of renewable energy credits proposed in H. 468 to evaluate the environmental effects of different energy sources from wind to biomass. The study will be released January 2013 in time for Vermont to put its renewable standards portfolio in place.
â Any disturbances to water, forest, or air quality will be taken into consideration based on information on different kinds of renewable energy projects and kinds of technology,’said Sen. Ginny Lyons, D-Williston, and chair of Natural Resources.
The study should also mitigate controversy on how biomass would have been tiered, said Lyons, because it will be able to evaluate the side effects of different size projects.
According to Lyons, citizens were concerned at the difference between an industrial scale power plant generating energy with biomass vs. smaller biomass generators at homes or churches.
~ Erin Hale
vtdigger.org4.16.2012
Legislature ponders utility merger, fracking and biomass
Submitted by tim
on