Oh, Vermonters are a fickle bunch. A new poll finds that most Vermonters want Vermont Yankee to remain open and support Gov. Peter Shumlin’s call to create a single-payer health care system.
Those are the latest, and final, results from a poll conducted late last month by Public Policy Polling out of North Carolina. The firm began to release its poll results last week. The final results were released this morning.
Among the last were miscellaneous questions PPP asked more than 1200 Vermonters related to Vermont Yankee, single-payer health care and same-sex marriage. They also asked what Vermonters thought of Sen. Patrick Leahy, Rep. Peter Welch and possible candidates running for Vermont Treasurer. The poll’s margin of error was 2.8 percent.
According to PPP, Vermonters are closely divided on VY and health care: 40 percent support the new health care law while 35 percent are opposed and 25 percent remain unsure. The polling firm called it a “single payer health care” law, but the law doesn’t establish a single-payer system. Rather it merely moves the state in that direction. The state would need to receive multiple waivers from the federal government, and come up with a way to finance it, before enacting the system.
Meanwhile, 45 percent of those polled believe Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon should continue to operate. Another 41 percent believe it should be shut down. Entergy is suing the state of Vermont to keep VY open beyond March 2012, when the plant’s in-state license expires. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has agreed to let VY operate another 20 years. Entergy recently went ahead with the purchase of enough fuel to keep VY open until March 2013.
The issues broke largely on party lines with Democrats supportive of the health care law and opposed to VY. Republicans largely oppose the health care law and support VY. Independents support both the health care law and the power plant, tipping victory in each instance, PPP noted in its results.
Maybe Entergy should offer to pay a special health care “surcharge” in return for staying open a bit longer. Stranger things have happened.
Vermonters were asked about a major national issue that has already been settled in the Green Mountain State — same-sex marriage.
According to PPP, most Vermonters said legalizing same-sex marriage has had “no impact on their lives.” Sixty percent said it’s been a non factor for them personally; 22 percent said it’s had a positive effect; and 18 percent said it’s had a negative impact.
A strong majority — 58 percent — told PPP they are glad that same-sex marriage is legal, while 33 percent disagreed. And even among those who remain opposed to the law, 55 percent admitted its legalization has had no effect on their lives.
When PPP added civil unions to its survey question, the support for legal recognition of same-sex couples jumped to 79 percent: 55 percent prefer marriage and 24 percent prefer civil union, while 18 percent of Vermonters oppose any sorts of rights.
Finally, PPP asked who Vermonters might support in the race for state treasurer next year: Democratic appointee Beth Pearce or state Sen. Randy Brock (R-Franklin), who also served a stint as state auditor. Brock edged out Pearce 36-33, which is just outside the poll’s margin of error. Of those polled, 31 percent were undecided. PPP called this potential race a “wash.”
Previous PPP poll results have found that Sen. Bernie Sanders easily bests all GOP challengers next year. The pol that comes closest to knocking out Sanders is former Gov. Jim Douglas at 18 points behind the junior senator. But, don’t get your hopes up: Douglas has already poo-pooed the notion of running against Sanders. If you recall, Douglas almost — almost — challenged Sanders for that Senate seat in 2006 and took a pass.
Likewise, Gov. Peter Shumlin is already well ahead of most potential challengers, though by slimmer margins than Sanders.
In a hypothetical rematch of the 2010 gubernatorial contest, Shumlin would beat Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie by a 48-40 margin. That’s still not more than the 50 percent needed for Shumlin to be elected outright to the office, rather than being constitutionally appointed by the legislature. That’s the good news.
The bad news for Shumlin is that his favorability rating has yet to crest above 50 percent — perhaps due to the policy issue split among the electorate noted above — and it lags behind that of Dubie’s favorability.
According to PPP, 45 percent of voters view Shumlin favorably while 36 percent don’t. Meanwhile, 48 percent of voters view Dubie favorably while 33 percent don’t.
This article appears in Aug 10-16, 2011.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
@Murphy: When Entergy first sought the new CPG they agreed that their cost of production was about 2 cents per kwh; the contracted sale price was about 4 cents per kwh; and the market price was about 8 cents per kwh. Those numbers have all flexed a bit, but the relationship appears as valid today as when Entergy applied for the CPG. Supporters of the plant have drawn from Entergy talking points and have leaned heavily on the financial benefit of the existing PPA, and the value of cheap electricity. The current contract provides substantial benefits to Entergy, and is favored by a many Vermonters. Given the support for continued operation is so heavily weighted by the current availability of cheap electricity, it’s reasonable for the legislature to seek a similar value in the future. Entergy hasn’t even come close. Essentially, the company is relying on the current contract to incite public support, but is not offering to deliver that value in the future.The actual make-up of a favorable contract could vary. It might favor large sales at a near market price, or small sales and a steep discount. It could be weighted toward stability, or it could weight toward volatility with a premium rate benefit. There are lots of options available, but Entergy appears to have been unwilling to match the value of the current deal that the constituents of the legislators find so appealing.Likewise, Entergy could have addressed the economic elements of reliability with an assurance of payments based on the RSA even if the plant didn’t operate. Since the future reliability of the plant is in such doubt, such a guarantee would have alleviated the uncertainty of the unit contingent deal, and would have favored continued operation. Entergy again leans on the past, but fails to address the very legitimate concerns about future reliability, and has failed to address the public expectation for a substantial RSA benefit going forward.Even apart from rates and the RSA, Entergy could have promised to meet its commitment to fully decommission the plant (which it has backed away from), or could have assured decommissioning when the plant shuts down, an offer that would have provided substantial benefit to the local workforce. But again, Entergy didn’t do that. Nor did they provide actual assurance that the condenser would be replaced, or that a 100% transformer would be available on stand-by. Essentially, Entergy was seeking a guarantee from the state that it could operate for 20 years, but provided no meaningful assurance of future operation.There were multiple avenues for Entergy to travel that would have enticed legislators to vote in favor of continued operation, but Entergy made a strategic decision to ignore legislative interests. That’s why we are in the current situation. If Entergy were to address the very real concerns of the public and the legislature, they could still win approval. The vote that must happen within the legislature is by the General Assembly, and isn’t subject to a veto. That minimizes the role of Governor Shumlin, who incidentally wasn’t governor when Entergy began the failed contract process that hasn’t met the interests of Vermont utilities. Most of those negotiations occurred long before Peter Shumlin was elected. A deal on a PPA may still be within reach, and even if that horse has left the barn, there are plenty of other sweeteners that Entergy could offer to bring the legislature on its side. But for that to happen, Entergy needs to work within the legislative channels, and pull back the assault they launched in federal court.It really is Entergy’s game to win or lose. The workers that value their jobs so highly need to apply pressure to the company to work out a solution to save those jobs. Entergy can do that.
Thank goodness we are getting safe, reliable nuclear power-from New Hampshire.The Governor has convinced me that Vermonters are too fooking stupid to handle matches, let alone uranium.
“Only” not much more than 10% off wholesale? What the . . .??? In addition to the taxes they pay, the community donations they make, and the Revenue Sharing Agreement? You also want them to give Vemont’s entire power need (1,000+ MW) for free??? Funny, you aren’t asking the same thing of the retail utilities.And you lay all the blame for the current impasse on VY, essentially because they won’t give the price discounts you think they should. Sorry, I must disagree. They’ve made some stupid mistakes, but I believe the current lack of PPAs is due to the fact that they’ve been faced with nothing but hostility, taunting, and antagonism, and been used as a scapegoat by an unscrupulous politician and his cronies and certain media outlets, out of all proportion to the mistakes they’ve made. That does not make for a good negotiating climate for PPAs. Nevertheless, they made an incredibly good offer to VEC, and it was rejected by the VEC board (whose attitudes toward VY I believe were affected by Shumlin’s and VPIRG’s constant attacks on VY). No, I believe the primary if not sole reason for no PPAs with Vermont utilities is obviously the fact that no utility can negotiate a PPA with a producer that Gov. Shumlin taunts and insults every single day and is just seething to shut down (even when his own cabinet people have to retract his statements the very next day).Which brings me back to my point. We could end up with a situation where we host VY, but do not get the benefit of good long-term power contracts with them, thanks to the very people who are trying to shut them down (illegally, I believe). The extra super-irony is that if they win their lawsuit and are allowed to keep running, and Vt. utilities end up buying power from “the grid,” some of those electrons in the grid will be generated by VY.
Responding to “Murphy:” I don’t think Entergy ever planned to sell Vermont utilities power at anything much less than 10% off wholesale, and that would have been for a small amount of power. That was their position at the outset in late 2007, and they appear to have stuck with it. The other point worth keeping in mind is that Entergy saw the primary contract benefit in the Revenue Share Agreement and was willing to trade that out for a better price on electricity, but it appears Entergy was not willing to enhance the RSA with an additional PPA.All along Entergy has had ample opportunity to recognize the issues the legislature (and the PSB) finds important, and to negotiate an MOU that would tip the balance in favor of continued operation. Entergy has been unwilling to make the necessary concessions, and thus hasn’t been able to get legislative approval. The ball has been (and still is) in their court.
“The worst part of Shumlin’s election-oriented crusade against VY is that it has scared the VT utilities away from buying any power from VY” You overlook the fact that Entergy Nuclear didn’t have the most competitive price. Seabrook had a better price, so they got the contract. No ‘benifit’ comes from buying power from Entergy when the price they were offering was not competitive.
@ Sue:The worst part of Shumlin’s election-oriented crusade against VY is that it has scared the VT utilities away from buying any power from VY, while at the same time it is entirely possible that the federal court will say that VT has no business trying to stop it from continuing to run. Then you’d have almost the worst of both worlds: VY continues to operate for another 20 years under its federal license, but Vermont gets no power from it. (We’d still get employed workers and tax dollars and other benefits from the operating plant, so it would be better than nothing, but we wouldn’t get the biggest benefit: long-term contracts for cheaper electricity bought from an in-state producer that doesn’t burn coal or oil.)
Keep VY running. We need the juice.
Vermonters statistically prefer neither single payer nor Vermont Yankee given the margin of error.I wish they had verification questions with polls. For instance, “Is Vermont Yankee: a) The state’s minor league baseball who’s home is at Centennial field b) A gay bar in Essex c) A nuclear power plant in Vernon or d) A train that connects White River to New York City?”Then you’d get fun results like “80% of Vermonters know VY is a power plant, but 2% believed it was a train, 7% a baseball team and 13% a gay bar.”
Whatever happened to the 10 point package that Brian introduced at the beginning of his campaign last year?Of course it could probably be reworded as the 10 ways to lose an election. Baffle your supporters, and bewilder the undecided.
I don’t think the contrast in the opening paragraph shows fickleness. It shows that a goodly number of Vermonters are independently minded and not blind followers – that however much they like some of Shumlin’s policies, they are willing to think about each issue and form their own opinions.