Vermont has spent time and money developing a state energy plan. The department of public service is directed by law to "take into account the protection of public health and safety; preservation of environmental quality; the potential for reduction of electrical demand through conservation, including alternative utility rate structures; use of load management technologies; efficiency of electrical usage; utilization of waste heat from generation; and utility assistance to consumers in energy conservation."

Our state's energy policy is "to assure, to the greatest extent practicable, that Vermont can meet its energy service needs in a manner that is adequate, reliable, secure and sustainable; that assures affordability and encourages the state's economic vitality, the efficient use of energy resources and cost effective demand side management; and that is environmentally sound. To identify and evaluate on an ongoing basis, resources that will meet Vermont's energy service needs in accordance with the principles of least cost integrated planning; including efficiency, conservation and load management alternatives, wise use of renewable resources and environmentally sound energy supply."

One of the goals of Act 200 is "to encourage the efficient use of energy and the development of renewable energy resources."

In other words, it is Vermont's energy policy to bear the burden of our own power needs and focus on fufilling our future needs with renewable resources.

If you are serious about changing Act 248 to bring it up to date, then you will hear testimony from the developers of wind power, photovoltaics, hydroelectric, and other renewable energy resources discussed in Vermont's energy plan.

H.816 is an orphan of electricity restructuring. If it is enacted into law absent comprehensive restructuring legislation and someone wanted to build a power plant in Vermont to serve the power needs of Vermonters, the developer would face a higher hurdle for regulatory approval than merchant power plants selling power out of state.

Where are the studies that show that the state of Vermont will benefit by giving away our clean air and evaporating our water in order to make power for other states? What studies have been done to support the dramatic change in energy policy proposed by H.816? Why are we even considering throwing away our energy plan?

For a year and a half I have listened to promises that merchant power plants and pipelines are "economic development and jobs". I have spent more than a year learning about merchant power plant projects in surrounding states. What I have found are dozens of communities that have been negatively impacted by this new fad in profiteering from deregulation. There are 57 active proposals to construct more than 27,000 megawatts of new power plants in New England alone [See Interconnect Study]. More than 200 are proposed nationwide.

A recent newspaper article from Tuesday's Indianapolis Star emphasizes grassroots opposition to proposed merchant power plants. It quotes a quiet, neatly dressed, elderly man saying, "Cinergy is trying to take the gold mine and give us the shaft." He received thunderous applause. "It reflected their concern that a new generation of power plants emerging throughout Indiana will reap huge profits for owners and investors while gulping local groundwater, disturbing the peace and quiet, polluting the air and running roughshod over their ability to maintain a rural lifestyle."

The story is all too familiar. It could be about Agawam, Massachusetts where opponents were silenced by SLAP suits and widespread corruption led to disruption of town government; or Southington, Connecticut where regulators insisted on the use of dry cooling, which is widely acknowledged as the 'Best Available Technology', but the promoters refused to consider it so the plant was rejected; or New Milford, Connecticut, where air pollution would have fallen on surrounding high terrain so the plant was rejected; or Athens, New York, or Bellingham, Massachusetts, or Libertyville, Illinois, or Cambridge, Wisconsin, or Londonderry, New Hampshire, or North Smithfield, Rhode Island or, Tempe, Arizona or Glenville, New York -- only a few of the many communities with citizens groups dealing with merchant power plants.

The situation is chaos. The cost to communities is enormous. Why do we want to invite them into Vermont?

Is there a "need" for the power? More than 6000 megawatts have already been approved in New England, more than enough to meet the projected needs of New England's power market.

Tax revenues? An article from last week's Daily Gazette in Schenectady, New York, describes power plant developers' efforts to utilize every available tax deferment. We are not living in a vacuum. Do a study comparing the tax packages offered to communities that are hosting power plants.

Jobs? By their own admission, most of the jobs are "maintenance" jobs. You will have to add a lot of jobs to make up for the cost of these power plants, the cost to property values, the cost to increases in respiratory diseases and cancer, the cost to fire and rescue services and hazardous response teams. The pollution produced by these power plants will cost Vermonters' jobs. If these power plants come in it will reduce the ability for our existing businesses to expand.

Economic development? These claims are made with no substantiation. You can do studies, you can look at what has happened in other places, but without that foundation these claims are somebody's wish dream to excuse greed. The economic development that takes place is for large corporations at the expense of the communities. If there were any proof at all for this specious claim of economic development, we should expect to see economic studies, examples of successes elsewhere, but all we have seen are the appraiser who said this whole area is red-zoned, which means "unmarketable". Here is a study done for the Office of the Attorney General in New Hampshire about the impact on residential property values due to the proximity of gas fired cogeneration facilities and associated transmission lines. Where are Vermont's studies? These power plants do not turn into industrial parks that have businesses around them. They turn into dead zones. Every property in the vicinity is devalued. It is common for power plants operators to buy out properties around power plants. Who is it who keeps this fantasy alive? If there was any benefit from these projects, I would have found it.

Known for its lush green mountains and quaint villages, the scenic state of Vermont is attracting hundreds of relocating Americans. Vermont has become the number-one Magnet State for Americans who want to relocate. "People are relocating to Vermont because it's a fabulous place to live and a great place to work," said Secretary Molly Lambert, of Vermont's Agency of Commerce and Community Development. "Low crime rate; clean air; no congestion; great recreational, educational and business opportunities; and a wonderful environment for families all combine to support an unbeatable quality of life." If Bennington ends up looking like Newark, the Newark tourists will go elsewhere. If we open the door wide for merchant power plants, the 'Law of Unintended Consequences' will bring in smokestack industries and corporate polluting profiteers, and we will lose Vermont as we know it.