New water rules could affect VY discharge

The state's Water Resources Board will soon be reviewing whether Vermont's water anti-degradation procedure should become law. Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Allen

Newfane, VT

#21 Dec 29, 2010
We need to replace the retiring Vermont Yankee plant with clean, renewable, homegrown energy. We can make Vermont the most energy efficient state in the nation while we ramp up the development of our renewable energy resources like solar, wind, small biomass and small hydro. We also need to slash Vermont's dependence on fossil fuels for heating and transportation. Additionally we need to focus on conservation, which can easily replace the energy we currently receive from VY.
Once VY is shut-down we can apply our efforts to do so, especially if we can revert some of the subsidies which are now going to nuclear.
I Know More Than You

Gilford, NH

#22 Dec 29, 2010
Allen wrote:
Once VY is shut-down we can apply our efforts to do so, especially if we can revert some of the subsidies which are now going to nuclear.
Please, if anything VY has helping by providing below market rate power for year. It's a cheap out to state that you can only work on renewables and conversation once VY is closed.

Take a look and see how many $/MWhr in subsidies various power production methods have received over the years and then take a look at the current DOE budget.

The Brattleboro Informer

Florham Park, NJ

#23 Dec 29, 2010
Allen wrote:
We need to replace the retiring Vermont Yankee plant with clean, renewable, homegrown energy. We can make Vermont the most energy efficient state in the nation while we ramp up the development of our renewable energy resources like solar, wind, small biomass and small hydro. We also need to slash Vermont's dependence on fossil fuels for heating and transportation. Additionally we need to focus on conservation, which can easily replace the energy we currently receive from VY.
Once VY is shut-down we can apply our efforts to do so, especially if we can revert some of the subsidies which are now going to nuclear.
Not going to happen. In Vermont There is not much activity on the renewable energy front; the whiners and the NIMBYs just won't have it. But, to blaming the lack of action on renewable energy in Vermont on Vermont Yankee's existance is really pathetic; a new low!

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#24 Dec 29, 2010
I Know More Than You wrote:
Please, if anything VY has helping by providing below market rate power for year. It's a cheap out to state that you can only work on renewables and conversation once VY is closed.
Entergy is not providing below market power for a year or any amount of time. Another lie. Kindly prove it or zip it.

Not sure what you think DOE has to do w/anything.

Fact: VT can save twice the MW what Entergy allotted in efficiency alone.

Amount VY allotted to VT: 115MW

Amount VT can save in efficiency: 200+MW, 2008-2009 figure. It is unclear how much Effiency Vermont has already saved but their goals are ongoing & aggressive. I think its like 20MW/per year. In three years through them alone VT could save 45-60MW.

Shumlin just hired a VT State Buildings Commissioner-Mike Obuchowski & wants him to use efficiency & renewables for VT state buildings. Other efficiency is going on in the state also, so these will be in addition to whatever else is going on.

A couple of months ago, VT elec utilities only needed 90MW. They may have made progress in closing the gap.

One thing is abundantly clear-VT does not need Entergy, VY or nuclear power. Period.

I do not think they will have a buyer. they only have until April to sell bc they need to know by then whether to purchase fuel.

Legislature has no plans to revisit the issue, Shumlin has not budged despite the ridiculous rumormongers fairy tales & wishful thinking.
Nancy Stardust

Chelsea, VT

#25 Dec 29, 2010
I Know More Than You wrote:
<quoted text>
Please, if anything VY has helping by providing below market rate power for year. It's a cheap out to state that you can only work on renewables and conversation once VY is closed.
Take a look and see how many $/MWhr in subsidies various power production methods have received over the years and then take a look at the current DOE budget.
"The former president of Shell oil is predicting that the United States will face 1970s-style energy shortages and rationing by the end of the decade, accusing the federal government of turning its back on the country's domestic oil supply.

The dire prediction comes as energy analysts toss out a string of frightening predictions about the rising price of oil in the short term. Oil has topped $90 a barrel, and JP Morgan Chase & Co. earlier this month predicted oil could hit $120 a barrel by the end of 2012. At the same time, the national average gasoline price is about $3 a gallon for the holiday season

But former Shell executive John Hofmeister offered a more aggressive estimate, saying Americans could be paying $5 a gallon in two years. And he predicted that sometime between 2018 and 2020, supply and demand will become so out of balance that gas stations in several regions of the country will simply start to run out.

"I think it's going to be a cumulative problem that won't happen suddenly," Hofmeister, who now heads Citizens for Affordable Energy, told FoxNews.com . He predicted the problem would start with "stockouts" at select gas stations during the summer and during bad weather and then spread. He said those states farthest from refineries would get hit the worst and that in order to maintain some consistency, local and state governments might resort to the kind of rationing they employed in the early '70s -- when drivers with even-numbered license plates would buy gas on even days, and vice-versa.

With this kind of possibility on the horizon, Hofmeister, who earlier aired his concerns in an interview with Platts Energy Week, criticized the administration for cracking down on domestic oil drilling in the wake of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
running up credit card debt declaring bankruptcy a bad idea leaked doc offers new hint about verizon iphone 5 Teens Found Dead in South Florida Motel Room IRS Backs Off Flex Account Debit Card Ban for Over-The-Counter Drugs China Closer to Deploying Anti-Carrier Missile "It is pure politics that keeps us from drilling more of our own resources," he said.

The Interior Department announced earlier this month that it would not pursue any new drilling off the East Coast or in the eastern Gulf of Mexico for at least seven years. Planned lease sales would be pushed off until late 2011 or early 2012.

"As a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill we learned a number of lessons, most importantly that we need to proceed with caution and focus on creating a more stringent regulatory regime," Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in a written statement at the time, calling the new plan a "careful, responsible path."

The April 20 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig killed 11 people and opened up a leak that gushed oil into the Gulf for months. The decision to tighten Gulf drilling regulations was cheered by environmental groups. The Sierra Club said the BP disaster showed how "dirty, deadly and dangerous offshore drilling is," applauding the administration for heeding those lessons -- the group praised the administration for moving to support alternative-energy investment like wind power...."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/27/oi... #
Nancy Stardust

Chelsea, VT

#26 Dec 29, 2010
The Interior Department announced earlier this month that it would not pursue any new drilling off the East Coast or in the eastern Gulf of Mexico for at least seven years. Planned lease sales would be pushed off until late 2011 or early 2012...But government-fueled investment in alternative-energy research takes time, while other options, like nuclear energy, are slow and costly to get off the ground. Hofmeister, noting that domestic oil production has dropped from 10 million barrels a day just a few decades ago to about 5 million a day, said the United States could address its short- and medium-term energy needs by expanding drilling at existing sites and exploring new sites. He said that could help bridge the gap toward ultimately implementing alternative energy sources on a wide scale, as well as improving mass transit.

Oil industry organizations joined together this month in predicting the new regulations on domestic oil production would hurt the economy and increase dependence on foreign oil. The president of the American Petroleum Institute plans to deliver a speech next week in Washington, D.C., on how domestic oil and natural gas production can help stabilize the country.

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#27 Dec 29, 2010
The Brattleboro Informer wrote:
Not going to happen. In Vermont There is not much activity on the renewable energy front; the whiners and the NIMBYs just won't have it. But, to blaming the lack of action on renewable energy in Vermont on Vermont Yankee's existance is really pathetic; a new low!
Wrong! GMP is continuing w/its plans for wind in NEK. There are other projects.

As far as nimbys, solar, wind, biomass or whatever need to make their plans acceptable & an incentive to residents.

Part of the problem is they are not offering any incentive to residents w/exception of GMP. They also need to show neighbors that the things they fear are unfounded. Many residents have legitimate complaints esp w/the biomass plant.

If they do this, the ones who are just nimbys w/no valid reason will be overidden by other residents who want what the renewables have to offer.

They could also go where there is least resistance.

Residents can do things to reduce our need for power like everyone getting @ least one solar panel & making homes energy efficient which i & my husband have done. We are saving 20-25% on ac & heat.

Wind farm off the cape is going forward & projected to supply 24% of power to grid.

Another one is proposed, 1000MW, linking NE grid to NJ & NY, further reducing the need for VY which is only 2% anyways & unnecessary regardless, but could take over when IP reactors in Buchanan & Oyster Creek in NJ are shuttered.

H-Q also wants to move into both northeast grids. All of these technologies further making nuclear obsolete & unnecessary in the region.

"Wind Farm Would Link Northeastern Grids"
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/win...

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#28 Dec 29, 2010
Allen wrote:
We need to replace the retiring Vermont Yankee plant with clean, renewable, homegrown energy. We can make Vermont the most energy efficient state in the nation while we ramp up the development of our renewable energy resources like solar, wind, small biomass and small hydro. We also need to slash Vermont's dependence on fossil fuels for heating and transportation. Additionally we need to focus on conservation, which can easily replace the energy we currently receive from VY.
Once VY is shut-down we can apply our efforts to do so, especially if we can revert some of the subsidies which are now going to nuclear.
This is exactly what Shumlin wants to do, become the leader in renewable energy.

You are correct re efficiency. 200+MW savings was projected 2 years ago or so. He just hired someone to make the state buildings in VT energy efficient & use renewables to do so. When one thinks of how much waste VT has in just state buildings alone, I'm sure it will be significant, since Douglas sure couldn't care less.

There is no reason VT towns cannot renew hydro capacity & use it to power towns locally. CVPS bought a couple & they were not even up to capacity.

Under the shadow of H-Q, VT can become energy efficient using conservation, efficiency & become independent by growing our renewables using new tecnologies.

Nuclear does not want to see this as they are in trouble already since the renaissance hit quicksand two years ago after not making much headway even prior to this. Even npp fleet owners are turning to renewables bc of the profitability claiming new nuclear cost is prohibitive even with incentives, subsidies & loan guarantees.

If the nation sees what can be done, it will move other states, many of whom have much more space & natural resource for use wind & sun.

VT is already a blck eye for the nuke industry which is why we have become such a battlegound for pronuclear activists nation wide. Many from all around the US flood these thread promoting nuke industry & dissing renewables & efficiency.

The 'freeze in the dark' fearmongerers are not fooling the gullible public anymore.
Nancy Stardust

Hardwick, VT

#29 Dec 29, 2010
Renewable energy hits a SPEED bump in Vermont
Is Vermont’s program designed to promote the development of renewable energy illegal under federal law? That would appear to be the opinion of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), based on a decision the agency made a few weeks ago.

The other New England states have opted for so-called renewable portfolio standards that require their utilities to purchase or generate a percentage of their power from renewable sources. Vermont took a different approach – its SPEED (Sustainably Priced Energy Development) program.

As enhanced by the Legislature in 2009 – over the veto of Governor Douglas –SPEED now includes a “Standard Offer” program for new generators of renewable power that are smaller than 2.2 megawatts. The program essentially requires Vermont utilities to buy renewable power at premium rates, the reasonable theory being that wind, solar and other renewables could not otherwise compete with conventional sources of electricity like nuclear and fossil fuels.

The program rolled out last October 19 and was wildly popular among potential developers of small renewable facilities, many of them municipalities and nonprofits. The program called for the development of 50 megawatts of capacity altogether. On the first day applications were accepted, more than 200 megawatts of potential projects sought to participate.

The lucky 50 megawatts of winning facilities, chosen by lottery, will get 20-year contracts with their local utilities. Or maybe not, as the result of the July 15 FERC order.

At issue was a similar program in California, involving rate subsidies to “combined heat and power” generation facilities. California utilities argued that such wholesale power transactions – i.e., purchases of power by utilities for resale to their customers – are regulated by the federal government rather than the states. The FERC agreed.

As every first-year law student know, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution is the Supremacy Clause, which provides that the enactments of Congress are the “supreme law of the land.” In legal parlance, state law that conflicts with a congressional enactment is said to be preempted. The congressional statute at issue here is the Federal Power Act, which tasks the FERC with regulating wholesale power transactions.

The FERC left one door ajar. It concerns another federal enactment, the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA). First enacted during the Carter Administration to encourage the development of small, independent renewable power facilities, PURPA requires utilities to buy power from such producers at rates that are ultimately set by state utility commissions. But here’s the catch: By order of the FERC, the rates must be based on each utility’s “avoided cost”– i.e., what it would have cost them to generate the power themselves or buy it from conventional sources. The FERC said that a Standard Offer program that complies with PURPA would not suffer death by preemption.

http://www.vermontlawenergy.org/2010/08/renew...
I Know More Than You

Gilford, NH

#30 Dec 29, 2010
northstaridiot wrote:
Entergy is not providing below market power for a year or any amount of time. Another lie. Kindly prove it or zip it.
My mistake, VY has been providing below market power for yearS and has saved VT millions of dollars with the power purchase agreement which has been in place since Entergy purchased the plant in 2002.

I know how easily confused you get and I apologize for unintentionally misleading you and therefore making you look ignorant. I usually make you ignorant on purpose.
northstaridiot wrote:
Not sure what you think DOE has to do w/anything.
Who do you think provides R&D money for wind, solar, nuclear, efficiency? It's times like this that I find it hard to believe that someone can be so ignorant.

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#31 Dec 29, 2010
I Know More Than You wrote:
<quoted text>
My mistake, VY has been providing below market power for yearS and has saved VT millions of dollars with the power purchase agreement which has been in place since Entergy purchased the plant in 2002.
I know how easily confused you get and I apologize for unintentionally misleading you and therefore making you look ignorant. I usually make you ignorant on purpose.
<quoted text>
Who do you think provides R&D money for wind, solar, nuclear, efficiency? It's times like this that I find it hard to believe that someone can be so ignorant.
Still pi&$ed about this?

Entergy is not providing below market power for a year or any amount of time. Another lie. Kindly prove it or zip it.

Not sure what you think DOE has to do w/anything.

Fact: VT can save twice the MW what Entergy allotted in efficiency alone.

Amount VY allotted to VT: 115MW

Amount VT can save in efficiency: 200+MW, 2008-2009 figure. It is unclear how much Effiency Vermont has already saved but their goals are ongoing & aggressive. I think its like 20MW/per year. In three years through them alone VT could save 45-60MW.

Shumlin just hired a VT State Buildings Commissioner-Mike Obuchowski & wants him to use efficiency & renewables for VT state buildings. Other efficiency is going on in the state also, so these will be in addition to whatever else is going on.

A couple of months ago, VT elec utilities only needed 90MW. They may have made progress in closing the gap.

One thing is abundantly clear-VT does not need Entergy, VY or nuclear power. Period.

I do not think they will have a buyer. they only have until April to sell bc they need to know by then whether to purchase fuel.

Legislature has no plans to revisit the issue, Shumlin has not budged despite the ridiculous rumormongers fairy tales & wishful thinking.
I Know More Than You

Gilford, NH

#32 Dec 29, 2010
northstaridiot wrote:
Still pi&$ed about this?
Entergy is not providing below market power for a year or any amount of time. Another lie. Kindly prove it or zip it.
Not sure what you think DOE has to do w/anything.
Why would I be upset over a typo? Slightly embarrassed maybe since I so rarely make mistakes.

I'm certainly not upset the Entergy will have saved VT over $700 million dollars in the 10 years the original power purchase agreement was in effect for. I can't understand why you would be upset at that either unless you are an idiot...oh wait.
Nancy Stardust

Stowe, VT

#34 Dec 30, 2010
In terms of water standards, is Vermont only interested in VT's water standards, or is VT interested in the water standards of all countries and states that contribute to the energy mix that Vermonters consume? We all live downstream you know.
NAMVET

Manchester, NH

#35 Dec 31, 2010
More rules...time for change...LIVE FREE OR DIE

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#36 Jan 1, 2011
Nancy Stardust wrote:
In terms of water standards, is Vermont only interested in VT's water standards, or is VT interested in the water standards of all countries and states that contribute to the energy mix that Vermonters consume? We all live downstream you know.
VT is interested in the quality of the Conn River to the extent it is w/in VTs capabilities to regulate as are the other states, members of the CRWC.
http://www.ctriver.org/

Since VT can legally legislate the temp of discharges, this is the direction VT agencies must take. Getting it into statute, making it law.

This also serves to discourage any potential buyers of the plant or future plant construction as it is an additional expense. Also shows VT is activist in protecting land, water, air quality & unfriendly to entities which would pose a threat to the quality of these resources.

This could cause Entergy to start paying their own bills for the power they produce by using primarily or only the cooling towers which was the understanding when they bought the plant, and stop being subsidized by a natural resource, the river which does not belong to them & is there for the use of regional residents & tourists.
Nancy Stardust

Auburn, ME

#38 Jan 1, 2011
Allen wrote:
We need to replace the retiring Vermont Yankee plant with clean, renewable, homegrown energy. We can make Vermont the most energy efficient state in the nation while we ramp up the development of our renewable energy resources like solar, wind, small biomass and small hydro. We also need to slash Vermont's dependence on fossil fuels for heating and transportation. Additionally we need to focus on conservation, which can easily replace the energy we currently receive from VY.
Once VY is shut-down we can apply our efforts to do so, especially if we can revert some of the subsidies which are now going to nuclear.
Your solution to reduce our carbon footprint is to eliminate all nuclear power? Your logic is flawed.
http://asolutionforpollution.com/PDFs/reducin...
Nuclear Energy: A Key Tool in Reducing

Key Points
&#56256;&#56452; Nuclear power plants generate electricity
for one in five homes and businesses in the
United States without producing or emitting
any greenhouse gases, including carbon
dioxide. Nuclear power plants generate
73 percent of all carbon-free electricity in
America and are an essential mitigation tool
for reducing greenhouse gases.
&#56256;&#56452; Nuclear energy accounted for 54 percent of
voluntary greenhouse gas reductions (142 million
metric tons of carbon dioxide) reported by
the electric power sector in 2004, according to
a recent Power Partners report submitted to the
U.S. Department of Energy. The electric
power sector reported more carbon dioxide
reductions than any other reporting sector—
63 percent of 445 million metric tons.
&#56256;&#56452; Several analyses show that life-cycle emissions
from nuclear energy are comparable to
other non-emitting sources of electricity, such
as solar, wind and hydropower.
&#56256;&#56452; U.S. and international policymakers are
increasingly recognizing that nuclear energy
has a significant role to play in current and
future greenhouse gas emission-reduction
policies.
Nuclear Energy’s Vital Role in
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Carbon dioxide—the greenhouse gas mainly
emitted by human activity—is the major focus
of policy discussions to reduce emissions.
Many scientists believe that carbon dioxide
emissions increase the earth’s warming effect,
bringing about changes in climate. According
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
85 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions
are carbon dioxide.
Nuclear power plants produce large amounts
of electricity without emitting carbon dioxide
or other greenhouse gases. America’s commercial
power reactors provide about 20 percent
of our electricity—and nearly three-quarters of
the nation’s clean-air electricity generation.
By using nuclear power instead of fossil fuelbased
plants, the U.S. nuclear energy industry
prevented 681.9 million metric tons of carbon
dioxide emissions in 2005. For perspective,
the volume of greenhouse gas emissions
prevented at the nation’s 103 nuclear power
plants is equivalent to taking 96 percent of all
passenger cars off America’s roadways
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
January 2007

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#39 Jan 1, 2011
Nancy Stardust wrote:
Your solution to reduce our carbon footprint is to eliminate all nuclear power? Your logic is flawed.
http://asolutionforpollution.com/PDFs/reducin...
Wrong! You're logic, what little of it you have, is flawed:

Bla, bla, bla tiddy bla, bla, bla.

From nuclear front & Entergy sponsored VTEP rep to Topix community, acres of eyeglazing mind numbing factoids which amount to mere spam.

NEI as well as VTEP info is mere nuclear industry sponsored propaganda & only used & accepted by the nuke industry to promote their agenda.

Both are nuclear fronts sponsored by nuclear industry whose sole function is to disseminate their distorted, erroneous & inaccurate disinformation.
http://www.vtep.org
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...

Interestingly, Patrick Moore, self proclaimed 'environmental activist', actively involved w/both orgs.

"The Nuclear Issues portal is intended to help readers find out more about those behind the global push to revive the nuclear power..."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...

NEI blog & list of NEI supporters/collaberators & their blogs:
http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/

Nuclear PR/NEI:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...
NEI Personel included VY/Entergy's Jay Thayer & NPP fleet owners:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...

Nuclear Energy Institute:
- The lobbying/PR wing of the U.S. nuclear industry

- Clean Energy America: "building awareness of energy issues in general and nuclear energy in particular, in an effort to reach new and diverse audiences and answer the public's questions"

- Spinning nuclear as "emission-free"

- The power behind the nuclear resurgence

- NEI attacks nuclear opponents

- NEI ghostwriters

- Quietly lobbying local communities to accept waste
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...
Concerned

Bennington, VT

#40 Jan 2, 2011
Folks NSD finally admits it-they DO NOT read anything that does not agree with and/or fit the AGENDA they are paid to hammer forth. See opening statement post # 11."I do not read posts which are routinely inaccurate & erroneous. There simply is not enough time to investigate every rabbit hole."
If NSD took the time to investigate more than one rabbit hole, they may face the potential that they just might be wrong and have to readjust their thinking just a bit. Yeah like that will ever happen-the mental blinders are on too tight.

Let the rant, name calling and insulting sally forth.
Concerned

Bennington, VT

#41 Jan 2, 2011
Allen wrote:
We need to replace the retiring Vermont Yankee plant with clean, renewable, homegrown energy. We can make Vermont the most energy efficient state in the nation while we ramp up the development of our renewable energy resources like solar, wind, small biomass and small hydro. We also need to slash Vermont's dependence on fossil fuels for heating and transportation. Additionally we need to focus on conservation, which can easily replace the energy we currently receive from VY.
Once VY is shut-down we can apply our efforts to do so, especially if we can revert some of the subsidies which are now going to nuclear.
I agree we need OUR OWN clean, renewable home grown energy. The problem is our legislature and Utilities have failed at LONG TERM ENERGY PLANNING (Canada for example plans to have 10,000 more MW on line by 2015)-There should have been plans and projects in the pipe line 15-20 years ago-they were not. So we are quickly becoming a state that will be dependent not only on out of state BUT out of the country sources for our energy. That is $$ and jobs NOT in Vermont. That is the potential for major employer to leave Vermont (get cheap energy elsewhere). Whether VY closes (which I have no doubt it will) or remains open we are still faced with the issue of planning for the future energy needs of Vermont, sadly it will be supplied from outside our borders. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue, both parties have failed Vermont.
I told you

Westford, VT

#42 Jan 2, 2011
Concerned wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree we need OUR OWN clean, renewable home grown energy. The problem is our legislature and Utilities have failed at LONG TERM ENERGY PLANNING (Canada for example plans to have 10,000 more MW on line by 2015)-There should have been plans and projects in the pipe line 15-20 years ago-they were not. So we are quickly becoming a state that will be dependent not only on out of state BUT out of the country sources for our energy. That is $$ and jobs NOT in Vermont. That is the potential for major employer to leave Vermont (get cheap energy elsewhere). Whether VY closes (which I have no doubt it will) or remains open we are still faced with the issue of planning for the future energy needs of Vermont, sadly it will be supplied from outside our borders. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue, both parties have failed Vermont.
True that!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Vermont Government Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ex.-Gov. Douglas' memoir tackles gay marriage veto Sep 2 Sir Andrew 2
Ex-Gov. Douglas' memoir tackles gay marriage veto Sep 1 nhjeff 2
Gay marriage fight returns (Apr '09) Aug 21 carlina 76
Doug Racine out at Vermont Agency of Human Serv... Aug '14 Anne O Toole 2
Smoking around children becoming illegal Aug '14 Ho Lee Chyt 5
Vt. to ban smoking in all hotels and motels Jul '14 BOO EFFIN WHO 7
Police Log Jul '14 If Sheeple Would ... 6
•••

Vermont Government People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••