The Legislature's efforts to pass an energy bill may have crashed on the shoals of the governor's veto, but there is significant momentum that will yield new efforts when the Legislature convenes in January. The experience of the 2007 Legislature, and its confrontation with Gov. James Douglas, ought to offer some lessons.
The long battle reached a culmination last week when the Legislature voted to sustain Douglas' veto of H.520, the energy-efficiency bill. This battle showed that the legislative leadership has two faces.
One is Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, who inspires the Democratic base and whose rhetoric plays on the emotions of those many Vermonters seriously concerned about global warming and related energy issues. His rhetoric often veers toward the ideological and sharply partisan.
The other is House Speaker Gaye Symington. There is no indication she cares less than Shumlin about global warming and energy issues. But she has a narrower majority in the House than Shumlin does in the Senate, and she is more mindful of the process and generally refrains from harsh, accusatory language.
There is nothing wrong with partisanship in politics. Both parties necessarily devote much energy to firing up their troops, and the emotional appeals of our political leaders are a way of channeling feelings held by the people. Many Vermonters have become seriously engaged in the climate issue, and the parties would be foolish to ignore emotions that are running strong and which became evident at the Statehouse last week. But ideological politics, carried too far, can be unproductive.
Shumlin was in his element last week speaking to a crowd gathered in the well of the House. He told the young people in the crowd, "You are our base," and he accused Douglas of being in the pocket of the big corporations.
It is fair to say that in recent years the government has done a miserable job of policing predatory companies in energy, health care, finance and other sectors of the economy, and those who are aware of the government's failings are often inclined to sharp ideological criticism.
But that doesn't mean that Vermont does not have an interest in maintaining some kind of productive relationship with Entergy Vermont, the owner of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. The future of the plant's operations is not settled, and it may be in the interest of the state for the plant to continue operations past the expiration of its present license in 2012. It is a complex policy question.
The unwillingness of Douglas, his fellow Republicans and a significant bloc of Democrats to impose a significant new tax on Vermont Yankee does not mean that they are in the pocket of the big corporations. It means they are giving serious consideration to an important policy question. This is a pragmatic, not an ideological, approach, and the debate over the Yankee tax showed how ideology can get in the way of the development of good policy.
Next year the Legislature will be intent on putting together an energy bill that takes meaningful action to conserve energy and show the way for the nation to address the problem of climate change. The dire warnings about climate change sounded by Shumlin and Symington are justified. The problem requires significant government action, which will inevitably require personnel and revenue. The Legislature must continue to challenge Douglas' insistence that meaningful action can be taken on the cheap.
It will be important for the Legislature to establish a thorough and compelling record on the operations of Efficiency Vermont and the likelihood that it could effectively shoulder the burden contemplated by the bill vetoed by Douglas. This is the nonprofit corporation that serves as Vermont's energy-efficiency utility and which might have been asked to expand its operations beyond electrical efficiency to include efficiency in the use of fuels to heat homes and businesses.
There is much to be done to conserve the use of fuels in our buildings and in our vehicles, and government at both the state and national levels must take action. That includes all the states, including the small ones, which can serve as laboratories for experimentation in effective energy policy.
The energy-efficiency program proposed by the Legislature this year became affixed to the energy bill late in the session, and its prospects were clouded by the ideological divisions caused by the tax it imposed on Vermont Yankee. Next year Symington ought to keep close watch on the process so that the Legislature is able to put together a bill that draws the support of at least some Republicans.
Shumlin has done a good job of establishing climate change as a priority and channeling public sentiment toward this worthy goal. Symington's steady hand, and that of Rep. Robert Dostis, chairman of the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, can be useful in making sure the process does not veer off toward the shores of ideology where the bill once again crashes on the rocks.
