Emerson Lynn On Politics

Debate over Vt. Yankee needs to be based on truth

    Truth is often the first casualty along the political trail and it is helped by the practice of ignoring the facts, believing instead that repeating something often enough and loudly enough makes it true.  That defines the debate over Vermont Yankee and the governor’s decision Wednesday to veto the bill that would have forced Entergy, the owners of Vermont Yankee, to ante up as much as $400 million into a decommissioning fund.
    Predictably, the opponents, led by House Speaker Gaye Symington and Senate Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, responded to the veto by suggesting that the governor “…chose to stand in the way of protecting Vermonters from the potential financial risk if the Entergy Corporation sells Vermont Yankee to a highly leveraged company. With this veto Governor Douglas showed clearly that his allegiance is to a multi-billion out of state corporation instead of to Vermonters.”
    And that will be the theme played throughout the gubernatorial campaign. Ms. Symington, who has been continually tossed under the political bus by Mr. Shumlin, is expected to follow his lead again when, as expected, she announces her intentions. She would be better advised to dump him as the political baggage he is.

    Not only are Ms. Symington and Mr. Shumlin wrong factually, they are making the political environment more divisive when it comes to matters as to how the state is to proceed in formulating an energy future for the state of Vermont.
    It doesn’t help to mark Entergy as an out-of-state corporation, as if the location of the plant’s corporate headquarters means diddly. Are other corporations doing business in Vermont supposed to assume that they, too, are less favored among the Shumlins and Symingtons? Is IBM supposed to infer from this that it, too, does not have Vermont’s best interests at heart?
    It’s absurd to suggest that governors should distinguish between our corporate employers and Vermonters. If a policy is chosen that threatens the corporation, then Vermonters, by definition, are affected to an even greater degree. Corporations have many alternatives, their Vermont employees don’t. Insulting IBM, as Mr. Shumlin did by calling one of its executives a liar, is bad enough; championing policy that will cost IBM millions of dollars in additional fuel costs, is foolhardy. And it’s not IBM that is necessarily threatened, we are a blip on their screen, it’s the 6,000 employees whose jobs could be jeopardized. [And a lot more than that if one considers the collateral damage to other businesses.] What sort of economic development plan do Mr. Shumlin and Ms. Symington have in mind to make up the difference for these employees? How would Ms. Symington’s thoughts be received among those at IBM who must continually assess the Essex plant’s future?
    And this isn’t just about IBM. There are thousands of businesses that would be affected by the higher fuel costs that would result if the decommission bill had been allowed to become law.
    Ms. Symington and Mr. Shumlin understand the situation perfectly. They are trying to have it both ways. By passing the bill they can energize their base, and by not opting for a veto session, they can hope that the business community and their thousands of employees will allow the issue to fade into the political winds, since there is no risk of the bill becoming law. If they were passionate about the bill, they would have tried to override the governor’s veto.
    That is the worst sort of political gamesmanship. It stacks the game so that Vermonters hear only one side of the issue – the wrong side – with the truth being pushed to the sidelines.
    It is that sort of deference that has given Vermont its reputation as a challenging, high-cost place to do business. And the people most adversely affected are those who collect a pay check each week. These are the same people who have the most at risk with Mr. Shumlin’s and Ms. Symington’s insistence that Entergy dig into its pockets for as much as $400 million. No company forks out that kind of money without needing to recoup it in the form of higher rates. And who pays? The average Vermont family struggling to make ends meet on two incomes.
    That’s the truth that needs to be pushed this campaign. It’s time to put the political demagoguing aside, and understand that the debate over Vermont’s energy policy is central to all Vermonters’ best interests, and that the political divisiveness that has reared its head early in this campaign needs to be set aside. It hurts us all.

(Emerson Lynn  is the editor and publisher of the St. Albans Messenger where this essay first appeared.)

Comments

[Paul Zampieri]

Emerson Lynns' article on what the Liberal Democrats tried to do to punish Entergy and their big bad Nuclear Power plant is just one example in how they just don't get it. It used to be that we were proud of our nation's businesses instead of the enemies of the Liberal left. They really believe that Big Government will solve all our woes. It is refreshing to see an article like this by an editor and publisher. Mr. Tarrant wrote something similar and it was perceived as sour grapes. Thank You.

[Karen Kerin]

Truth is indeed the first victim in politics and it is directly attributable to low quality of elected and appointed folks that are our current masters. The press also deserves some blame as they rely on the elected and appointed masters to tell them what the news should say. There is a solution and it is to restore common sense to the law.

[G. Cross]

Karen Kerin is absolutely correct when stating, "There is a solution and it is to restore common sense to the law." Common sense would dictate that Entergy or its successor company will somehow guarantee that the decommisioning fund will be full when needed. Entergy's "trust us" does not seem to fill that bill. We can argue about how the fund will be filled, but there is no argument about the fact that there needs to be a guarantee about how that will be accomplished.