Published on April 11,  2007

MONTPELIER — It may not count as a straw poll on wind, but in last week’s debate on energy, Northeast Kingdom legislators voted to eliminate any tax break for wind farms.

A majority of the region’s 16 representatives registered their opposition to the measure while voting on an amendment proposed by one of their own.

The ill-fated amendment failed by a lopsided margin of 122 votes to 24.  But of the 24 representatives voting in favor of it, 12 were from the Kingdom, including its sponsor, Representative John Rodgers of Glover who represents in his district the town of Sheffield, where a 16-turbine wind farm is being proposed.

The discussion over how much wind farms should pay in taxes into the education fund has now moved into the Senate.  After the House passed a tax break for wind, at a rate higher than advocates lobbied for, testimony is scheduled to begin Wednesday, April 11, before the Senate Committee on Natural Resources.

At issue is whether a tax rate should serve as an incentive by giving wind developers a fixed rate based on the estimated power their turbines will produce.

Last week’s outcome in the House betrayed none of the in-fighting that went on behind the scenes on the day the bill was to come onto the floor.  Only a last minute compromise nipped a festering floor fight between two House committees — each with Democrats as chairmen — who differed greatly on how much taxes wind farms should pay into the education fund.

The House Natural Resources Committee had passed out a bill calling for wind farms to pay a tax based on their generation of power.  Under the proposal, the tax would be calculated by multiplying the annual kilowatt hours (kWh) produced — in the case of the proposed Sheffield plant, an estimated average of 115 million kWh — by a rate that amounts to roughly a third of a penny, $0.003.

But that rate found little favor among members of the Ways and Means Committee, which reviews all money bills before they go onto the floor.  And they doubled it to $0.006.

Moreover, in an amendment the committee attached to the bill, Ways and Means called for a review of the rate every three years to make sure the education fund would not get short shrift.  And as if to underscore their doubts about the tax scheme, the committee ordered the appropriate state agencies to consider options “for raising education tax revenues from wind-powered electric generating facilities.”  A report is due by the first of December.

If the committee meant to draw a line in the sand by bulking up their amendment, they nearly succeeded.  In the daylong negotiations that followed, Ways and Means barely budged until the last moment when a compromise was stuck.  The rate would be lowered to $0.00525, and there would be no messy floor fight.

For supporters, the loss may have been painful but it wasn’t lethal.  Lose a battle; win the war said their knowing looks as word circulated in the halls saying that once the bill had passed the House, the Senate would take over and bring the rate back down to more acceptable levels.

Around 7 o’clock Wednesday evening, April 4, the House gave its preliminary approval to the amended bill by a whopping margin of 123 to five.  Among the five voting against it were representatives Bill Johnson of Canaan and Duncan Kilmartin of Newport, along with Mr. Rodgers.

Representative Johnson said later there was nothing he liked in the wind tax formula proposed by the measure.

On the next day before the bill gained final approval, Mr. Rodgers launched his forlorn hope of an amendment.  Essentially, it provided one more chance to register defiance by House members from the Northeast Kingdom, where permits already have been granted to erect three more towers to measure wind speeds.

Interviewed this week, Mr. Rodgers was philosophical.  The third-term Glover Democrat said he offered the amendment because he doesn’t believe wind farms should get a special tax break.

“Are there any other businesses, if they’ve had a bad year, get a chance to pay their education tax on what they’ve made?” he asked.

As far as his failed amendment went, he said he saw “a shadow in the vote” of how legislators regard wind farms.  Those who represent districts that may host arrays of turbines in the future, he offered, “were more apt to support the higher tax.”

Beer could have bigger bang

County beer drinkers with a discriminating palate could be in for a treat if Representative John Rodgers of Glover has his way.

On Tuesday the House gave preliminary approval to his bill that would allow the state’s microbreweries to turn out a specialty beer with an alcohol content of up to 16 percent.

During a debate on the floor, Mr. Rodgers told lawmakers that the bill was intended to spur economic development and agricultural diversity.  Moreover, it would give Vermont microbreweries a new product to sell in a niche market, which for constituents of the third-term Glover Democrat could be as close as Greensboro.

That’s where a new microbrewery would likely spring up if the bill makes its way into law.

Mr. Rodgers said a constituent from Greensboro had asked him to sponsor the measure sometime during the last session.  The man would start his own operation, Farmstead Brewery, and raise his own hops if the bill makes it into law, according to Mr. Rodgers.

To win support, the bill had to get past opposition from the state’s Liquor Control Board and over hurdles related to fears of alcohol abuse.

Among those speaking out against the bill, Representative David Potter, a Clarendon Democrat, reminded his colleagues that alcohol is the most abused drug in the country.  He asked if it made good sense to support a bill that would raise the alcohol content of beer at a time when the state is trying to lower the costs of health care and human services.

Of the 100  traffic fatalities Vermont experiences a year, Representative Potter said that half were alcohol related.  And he said  he could not support a bill that might add to those figures.

But Mr. Rodgers argued that it wasn’t fair to turn his bill into a scapegoat for those who abuse alcohol.

“If you are intent on getting drunk, alcohol is available in this state,” he said, noting that anyone of legal age can buy liquor with high percentages of alcohol.

Opponents also argued that a beer with a high alcohol content would hold a special appeal for young or underage drinkers.

But Mr. Rodgers and supporters of the measure argued that specialty beers appeal to those with a discerning palate who don’t mind spending the extra cash on a customized brew.

Mr. Rodgers said the bill wouldn’t act as an incentive for people to drink because specialty beers are strong and hearty, and like stinky cheese, are not for everyone.

Under the bill’s provisions, the specialty beer, which sells for as much as $20 a six pack, would be available wherever beer and wine are sold and taxed on the same basis.

In its support, the Ways and Means Committee found the measure would be revenue neutral for the state.

If the bill, as expected, wins final approval Wednesday, April 11, it will move on to the Senate where a similar piece of legislation has already been introduced and sent to the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs.

Committee Chairman Senator Vince Illuzzi of Derby said Tuesday in an interview that he struck a deal that allowed the House to act first on the bill.

Plucking chickens at home

Legislators got an earful last week over a broad agriculture bill that among other things would allow local farmers to slaughter and sell chickens to restaurants without being inspected.

Passed by the House late last month, the bill would allow chicken farmers who slaughter up to 1,000 birds a year to sell their product to restaurants and farmers’ markets without going through a state inspection.

At the hearing Wednesday, April 4, held jointly by the House and Senate agriculture committees, farmers and supporters said the measure would help bolster agriculture diversity and stimulate local economies.

Robert McDermott, a writer who advocates for locally grown food, testified that small local poultry farmers should not be treated the same as industrial chicken farms.

Farmers who raise chickens in the same community where they are to be eaten have a different commitment to their product, he said — one that takes pride in providing a bird to consumers that is nutritious and that has been humanely treated.

“I support anything that will keep big agri-business out of here,” testified a consumer who makes a practice of buying non-inspected chickens from local farmers.

More than a score of witnesses offered similar testimony, often citing the need to bring the state into step with small scale farming and energy conservation.

But some legislators worry that their testimony may have painted too pretty a picture.

“The last thing we want to have is people getting sick eating this chicken,” said Senator Bobby Starr of Troy, raising concerns of what could happen to Vermont’s image as a wholesome, natural producer.

“It could do our specialty products right in.”

The bill is now in the Senate Agriculture Committee, where Mr. Starr sits as vice chairman.

Mr. Starr, who couldn’t support a bill where slaughtered chickens were sold with no safeguards, said the committee is looking at setting up a certification process for small chicken farmers.

Under that proposal, farmers would go through a short course on how to process a slaughtered bird and check for any contamination.  The course wouldn’t cost much, according to Mr. Starr, and would likely be taught by people with the meat inspection program at the state Agency of Agriculture.

“It’s not a big deal, costwise,” said the senator.  “But it makes people more knowledgable.”