One of the key questions in the debate over Gaz Metro’s proposed acquisition of Central Vermont Public Service is this: Is it ever okay for the legislature to stick its nose into a regulatory process governed by the independent Public Service Board?
As we reported in this week’s Seven Days, Gov. Peter Shumlin’s answer last week appeared to be no, not ever. Outside an energy conference in Burlington last Monday, he said, “It’s absolutely inappropriate for the legislature or the governor to weigh in through law on a pending [Public Service Board] case.”
But later that week, Shumlin was asked at a press conference whether he did just that when, as Senate President Pro Tem, he orchestrated a 2010 vote denying Vermont Yankee a new operating license.
The gov’s answer?
No, he said. He was just following Act 160 — a law passed during his four-year hiatus from the Senate — which gave the legislature an up-or-down vote on Yankee’s relicensing. He further added that Act 160 — a law he utilized when trying to shut down Vermont Yankee — wasn’t such a hot idea in the first place.
At a press conference today, however, Shumlin shifted — ahem, elaborated on — his stance.
Asked about his effort last spring to charge Entergy, which owns Vermont Yankee, for any legal expenses the state incurred defending a lawsuit brought by the company, Shumlin today established a new standard of interference: If it has to do with Vermont Yankee, the legislature can do whatever the hell it pleases. If it has to do with utility acquisitions, leave well enough alone.
“The role of the legislature is different in Entergy than it has been in other regulated cases,” Shumlin said, because the legislature authorized the plant’s construction in the first place and then gave itself a role in the relicensing process.
Wait, what? Don’t worry, he explained:
This article appears in Apr 18-24, 2012.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Very thoughtful.
Greenberg can attempt to draw fine (actually, invisible) distinctions all he wants. It’s bogus. He favors the Legislature butting into the PSB’s jurisdiction IF the goal is to close down VY. The Governor is a liar. Period. And Greenberg is the Liar’s Chief Defender.
JCarter1: Obviously, I did indeed say what you quote me as
saying, and yes, the legislature DID “substitute political judgement for
legal-technical judgement when they voted and killed the PSB’s ability to
exercise that legal-technical judgement.” These things are NOT contradictory. The difference
which you and others seem intent on ignoring is where we are in the process.
In the VY case, the legislature wrote a well-thought through,
deliberative law when they enacted Act 160. They set up BOTH political and a
legal-technical processes, and by requiring the political vote BEFORE the
legal-technical process could conclude, they gave it precedence.
As I said in response to Guy, I would have had no problem
with the legislature doing precisely this again with the merger, but that’s NOT
what happened. I suspect there are a
number of issues which would arise if we were to accept “wendellsnoutsworthy”’s
suggestion of a “time out,” but I’m not
opposed to that idea a priori, since it does not tamper with the ongoing Board
process, though it might effectively preempt it.
I don’t speak for Shap Smith any more than I speak for the
governor, but his stated problem is the same as mine: namely, it’s a terrible
precedent to have the legislature DICTATE to the Board on technical matters during
an ongoing open docket.
I would presume the speaker didn’t “get his panties in a
bunch” about Act 160 for the reason I articulated: there’s nothing wrong with
deliberately setting up, in advance, a two-pronged process. In fact, there is precedent for this kind of
dual track process elsewhere in Vermont
law. Vermont’s low-level radioactive
waste disposal law establishes a detailed technical decision making process for
siting waste in Vermont, but then requires legislative approval before a
disposal facility could actually be built. (It also established a process for negotiating
an out-of-state compact, which is the solution that was ultimately chosen). I would be unsurprised to learn that there
are other examples as well.
Finally, your last statement is only partly correct. It’s true that Shumlin “made this his campaign
issue,” but it’s not true to say that he “made a political decision to prevent
the PSB from making a ruling. “ He
followed a law that had been written 4 years earlier which did just that. Shumlin’s political decision was confined to
timing the vote when he did. All sides
in the debate ASSUMED that the provisions of Act 160 would be followed. Entergy
and Governor Douglas had been asking for a vote until right before Shumlin
actually scheduled it, but of course, their motives were pure as the driven
snow and had nothing whatever to do with anything political, but his were
nefarious.
Jcarter has it exactly right on this. Our bare-ass Governor is a blatant two-face when it comes to interfering with the PSB.
Whoa hold the phone…did you really say this :
“Legislators should think carefully about whether they want to have a Board to
sort out these complex issues, or whether they really want to substitute
political judgement for legal-technical judgement”
But um, John… did the Legislature (Senate) not substitute political judgement for legal-technical judgement when they voted and killed the PSB’s ability to exercise that legal-technical judgement? They denied the board the ability to sort out the complex issues. They said, no the PSB can not rule on this.
You can argue semantics all you want on this one, but the reality is on the one hand we have the Gov saying its ok and on the other saying it isn’t. All Shummy did on this one was hide behind the law. A funny thing is I didn’t see Shappy with his panties in a bunch about the law making him bring it to a vote.
Petey made this his campaign issue, he made a political decision to prevent the PSB from making a ruling.