11 to 0 Decommissioning Bill passes out of committee

Yes, it's a priority...now. (4.00 / 1)

It certainly had to reach quite an extreme before the priority was recognized.

---

by: Sue Prent @ Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:16:27 AM UTC

Vermont owes a huge debt of gratitude (0.00 / 0)

To Fairewinds and all the other groups that have worked so hard to ensure Entergy can't walk away from its responsibilities, saddling us with billions of dollars in costs.

This is such an important bill. Congratulations to all those who made it happen!

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:37:19 AM UTC

True, thanks are due but ... (4.00 / 2)

It is the enforcement of any bill that becomes law that matters.

So far, our Democratic AG has been, um, somewhat less than diligent or enthusiastic about investigating the possible perjury by Entergy officials regarding the leaking underground pipes or the continued contamination of the Connecticut River or the apparent conflicts of interest by Douglas-Dubie administration officials with regard to less than arm's-length relationships with large polluters, or the apparent political agenda enacted by regulatory persecution of small polluters -- to the point of putting them out of business, or ...

But he keeps getting elected. One wonders ,,,

In any case, the legislature can pass all the laws it wants, but when you've got somebody who behaves as if he has spaghetti where a spine should be, having the laws on the books will be of no help whatsoever. When your AG is unengaged with the issues, ya got nothin ta work with.

He's apparently willing to go after ya if you're fat, but not after the nuke plant that's making ya glow in the dark. Funny how the AG's office is covering this urgent public health menace in which NO LAWS ARE BEING BROKEN.

NanuqFC
Truth in life and law is the backbone of integrity. ~ Anon.

---

by: NanuqFC @ Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:21:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's hope a challenger with a spine (4.00 / 1)

Makes a run... Any thoughts on potential candidates?

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 07:18:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's a Good Bill, But Could Use Some Improvements (4.00 / 1)

It's a pretty good bill, but could use some improvements.

First. The decommissioning trust is designed to fund "restoring the site" following decommissioning "of the plant." That leaves a remaining issue with the restoration of the proposed dry fuel storage facility when (if) the federal government removes the fuel. As I read the bill, there must be sufficient funding to restore the site following closure, but the dry fuel storage component will still be operational for many years after that restoration is complete. There should be clarification in paragraph (b) that greenfielding includes removal of the DFS facility as well. Alternatively, the restoration of the DFS facility could be included in the budget for the dry fuel storage, and listed as an expense in paragraph (c). In any event, it should be listed as a specific requirement.

I think that the intent of the legislation is to provide for greenfielding of everything, but I also think the DFS facility will be spun off and managed separately. Spent fuel management could even be taken over by the federal government at some point, and we should be sure there is private funding in trust for the ultimate decommissioning of the DFS facility. Entergy has budgeted for the restoration of the DFS facility in their current decommissioning cost analysis, so they do plan to do that, but it shouldn't be left to future generations to sort out. I'd like to see this issue clarified with a simple amendment.

Second, the requirement allows for a phase in such that the funds do not need to be whole until 2022. Thus, if the plant were to shut down in 2012 (or 2014...) it appears it would still need to roll into SAFSTOR until the owner made the fund whole. When Entergy bought the plant in 2002 they promised to decommission to greenfield status as of 2012, allowing only limited use of SAFSTOR. Honoring that commitment should be required as of March 22, 2012. The extra 10 years granted by this bill only serves Entergy's interest, not the interests of the State of Vermont. This looks like a concession to Entergy supporters, so it might be hard to change, but an effort should be made to require full funding by 2012.

---

by: tombuch @ Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 11:52:25 AM UTC

Legislature Changed Funding Date (4.00 / 1)

It looks like the forces supporting Entergy successfully changed the funding date to 2032 before it moved out of committee. That's not reflected in the on-line version at this moment. Not good.

---

by: tombuch @ Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 12:09:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]