By
the time you read this, the Vermont legislature will be within days
of adjournment. You've probably heard the saying that legislating is
a lot like making sausage. This is never more true than in the last
couple of weeks of Vermont's legislative session. An example of how
this works can be illustrated by Senate bill S.52.
S.52
was originally crafted to make some changes to the Public Service
Board process for conducting CPG (Certificate of Public Good)
hearings. As you may remember from previous articles, most bills
have to be passed out of the House or Senate by a certain date called
“crossover”, usually a week or two after Town Meeting, to be
considered by the other body. There are exceptions, but these are
limited to certain types of bills like money bills and municipal
charter bills. However, there are ways to get around this limitation,
as S.52 demonstrates.
As
it came over from the Senate, the bill gives municipal and regional
planning commissions a little more control over the 45 day
pre-application period when a developer notifies the local commission
of its intention to site an energy generation project. It allows the
commission to require the Department of Public Service to attend a
local hearing and to hire an expert at the applicant's expense to
evaluate the project. It also extends by a few days the time for the
commission to make recommendations to the PSB regarding the project.
In addition, the bill standardizes the comment periods for energy,
meteorological stations, and telecommunication facilities CPG
applications to 30 days from their current periods ranging from 21 to
30 days. It gives the Department of Public Service authority to
investigate complaints regarding noncompliance with CPG terms and
conditions and to issue administrative citations and penalties up to
$5000 for violations. Finally, the bill would change the name of the
Public Service Board to the Public Utility Commission, the name used
by most other states. The last provision would help alleviate the
public's confusion between the Department and the Board.
Here's
where the art of legislative scheduling becomes creative. Since the
Energy & Technology Committee passed a number of bills earlier in
the session that were not yet acted upon by the Senate, we decided to
add them to S.52. These bills included the telecommunication facility
siting process renewal bill (H.50), the ten year telecommunication
planning bill (H.347), and the appliance energy efficiency standards
bill (H.411). If by the end of the session the Senate never got
around to acting on them, their language would be included in S.52.
Also, since we were unable to finish a bill to have the Department of
Public Service study the feasibility and benefits of energy storage
technology, e.g. batteries, on the electric grid, we added this
language as well.
The
House passed these amendments to S.52, which was then returned to the
Senate. The Senate can accept the amendments, thereby enacting it
and sending it to the Governor. Or, it can make further amendments
and send it back to the House. Or, it can decide not to concur and
ask for a Committee of Conference between the House and Senate to
iron out the differences. In the meantime, if any of the bills that
were added passed the Senate before S.52 was finalized, the language
corresponding to the enacted bill could be removed from S.52. Thus,
from a variety of ingredients, a final bill can emerge. This
“sausage-making” process occurs frequently as the House and
Senate work to come to a consensus on various pieces of legislation
before time runs out. I hope the “sausage” will taste good, or
at least be in good taste.
I
encourage you to let me know your concerns and opinions. I can be
reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email
(myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).
