Yesterday the Vermont Electric Co-op sent a clear signal to Entergy Vermont Yankee. They voted 9-1 against signing a 20 year power purchase agreement with the aging plant. One VEC board member described his vote as follows:
“We need to lock in with a credible supplier,” he said. “We need to deal with a company that has the trust and support of the majority of our members. Entergy isn’t that company.”
Entergy had fired off its PR gun a little early on March 30th with a press release that was trumpeted by local online cheerleaders of the plant.
Entergy Corporation today announced Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC has completed negotiations on a 20-year agreement to sell power from the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant to customers of Vermont Electric Cooperative, Inc., the third-largest electric distribution utility in Vermont.
This announcement was quickly shot down by the VEC Chairman, and yesterday’s vote shows the deal had little support. Chalk it up to an ill timed PR move or an awkward attempt to bulldoze the VEC board or…it could be a move sooo sly only a few chosen souls even understand the sheer cleverness. You see according to YesVY blog (which understandably claims no inside knowledge) it was never meant to be about a VEC power deal at all!!
Entergy was sending secret signals to others.
It’s a little long but here put on these special glasses and you will see the message.
I think Entergy is signalling. Signalling can be sort of fancy word for advertising. However, advertising is often comparatively simple: "Strawberries now available at $2.50 a quart." Signalling can be much subtler. For example, a potential employee shows his dedication to his career by going to night school, therefore "signalling" to the potential employer that he will be a very good employee. In my opinion, this press release signals: Entergy Vermont Yankee intends to be open for business after March 2012, and they are willing to give very good power purchase agreement rates.
[…] Similarly, I think that the question of why Entergy sent this press release at this time cannot be answered by looking at Entergy's relationship with VEC. This press release is a signal to a wider market. Also, this is an upbeat way of signalling: we're ready to sell power to a buyer! If the VEC board turns down the agreement later this month, Entergy's signal would not be as effective.
What is it with the media's love of meaningless polls?
In an article in today's Rutland Herald, staff writer Susan Smallheer may have slipped and fallen prey to Vermont poll syndrome by letting another questionable poll punch above its weight. This stands out from Smallheer’s usual Vermont Yankee coverage.
Jefferies does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports. Investors should be aware that Jefferies may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report
So how does a pound of feathers ever weigh more than a pound? Smallheer claims:
The Jefferies report also gave weight to the recent results of The Doyle Poll, the unscientific poll conducted during town meeting by Sen. William Doyle, a Washington County Republican, which showed that 45 percent of Vermonters now favored Vermont Yankee to continue to operate. The poll, which is voluntary and open to repeated participation, showed a flip from 2010, when Vermonters were 52 percent against the relicensing, in the wake of the radioactive tritium leaks at Yankee.
But this poll, Doyle’s latest in his long running series of voluntary, easily manipulated polls, was taken on town meeting day before the almost month old Fukushima power plant problems.
Can’t imagine how the Jefferies report - insightful or not - gives weight to a thoroughly unscientific local poll taken before the Japanese nuclear accident which may shift attitudes. It still weighs a pound.
Sometimes you've just got to re-state the obvious. Entergy doesn't understand the meaning of the word "no" and the NRC seems to be suffering from short-term memory loss.
In light of the Fukushima crisis, our "DC-3" (Leahy, Sanders and Welch) have issued the following joint statement:
"It is hard to understand how the NRC could move forward with a license extension for Vermont Yankee at exactly the same time as a nuclear reactor of similar design is in partial meltdown in Japan. We believe that Entergy should respect and abide by Vermont's laws and the MOU signed with the state in 2002, which require approval by the Vermont Legislature, and then the Vermont Public Service Board, for the plant to continue to operate beyond 2012."
With an emboldened plutocracy flexing its muscles all over the country, it's good to have another reminder that our DC delegation continues to look out for the poor "step-children" who have been generally cut-adrift in the current round of economic blackmail. In this case, those "step-children" are the twin causes of environmental and human safety, both of which Entergy apologists would willingly sacrifice on the altar of "cheap" energy, just to keep VY burbling away well past its sell-by date.
Our own "DC 3" have all signed onto a letter drafted by Bernie Sanders, who sits on the panel charged with oversight of the NRC, urging that regulatory body to ensure that clean-up of Vermont Yankee is undertaken immediately following closure of the plant.
The lawmakers called it "unacceptable" that Entergy, which owns the Vermont plant, could engage in "decades of delay" before cleaning up the site along the Connecticut River at Vernon, Vt. "Immediate decommissioning will assure Vermonters that the plant is being disassembled safely," the delegation wrote. An immediate cleanup and shutdown of the site also would allow the plant operator to take advantage of the skills of many long-term Yankee employees who otherwise would lose their jobs.
In the letter to Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko, the delegation requests a meeting with the full commission; and that the meeting should include Governor Shumlin,
because of the "enormous consequences" for Vermont and the state's "vital interest" in the plant's safe shutdown.
Tying swift decommissioning to job retention is a brilliant and entirely legitimate strategy, which should steal some thunder from one of VY's dwindling arguments against closure.
As we know all too well,
Entergy has indicated it favors a so-called "SAFSTOR" decommissioning method, a process that the delegation letter said "would let Entergy off the hook" for cleanup and waste disposal for years or even decades. "While Entergy may prefer leaving the plant to sit like an abandoned factory because it has not saved the necessary funds to fully decommission the plant, this is not the safest option for Vermonters," Leahy, Sanders and Welch wrote.
"We have a right to our own opinions but not our own facts." Suffice it to say, Entergy Louisiana & VT Yankee still do not get this. Judging from past & present behavior, they never will. Their display of inherent dishonesty which was found to be corporate-wide, including being caught deliberately giving false information to VT regulators, legislature & those tasked with oversight has proven this, as well as abject failure at the 'transparency', as promised. Since then, things have only worsened.
On the anniversary of the historic and infamous vote by VT senate to close Entergy Louisiana owned Vermont Yankee, on schedule, by nearly unanimous 26-4 vote, Entergy Louisiana continues its fear mongering campaign and 'sky is falling' message to VT residents with all out assault on the state. The big prize? To overshadow and thereby obscure VT's victory, all taking place on the anniversary of the vote, hopefully with favorable outcome for them.
Obvious mission to undermine the will of the people by overturning the vote taken one year ago to shutter VY on schedule. Using their corporate might, attempted muscling of VT is very bald. This includes VT business community aligned with AIV-Entergy is also a member, and very own Entergy sponsored VTEP, a 'diverse business group' in which all members share at least one thing in common, all support VY continued operation-Entergy is also a member.
With VT news media at its disposal, in this past year continuing to the present VT has been bombarded with full page ads from Entergy Louisiana promoting VY as they & apologists attempted to explain away the series of failures spanning six years which served as evidence the plant had fallen into a state of disrepair due to faulty maintenance procedures by the company.
Ads were stopped when VT AG ruled they contained false information. Media blitz from Entergy Louisiana including employees and VT businesses all appearing as virtual bots in Stepford-like trance, as well as slanted & erroneous missives from a variety of sources, primarily VTEP staffers doing double duty as 'energy lobbyists' to legislature, Brad Ferland & Guy Page. Also including academicians from NH & VT, who have no nuclear experience or credentials, as evidenced by their irrelevent and inaccuracy-laden commentary. Valley News 1/19/2011 letter titled, "The Truth About Tritium" by Thomas Curphey, is a mere straw man argument as tritium itself has never been the main issue but the spin orchestrated by Entergy Lousiana. Another, Brattleboro Reformer "Free speech, energy choices and public health" op-ed by Gerry Silverstein, frequent VY apologist to VT news media, in which he compares the health of 38 year old plant to a 38 year old human body, was very strange since this is from a UVM professor teaching medical students. Facepalm.
Hope springs eternal in the breast of Vermont Yankee supporters who maintain that, even after countless leaks, squeaks and outright collapses; even after the legislature voted to let it go, and even after the man who led that vote is seated as Governor, there still could be some way to keep the infernal thing in operation. In today's Free Press, VY spokesman Larry Smith and Brad Ferland of Vermont Energy Partnership both expressed the hope that the Legislature could somehow be persuaded to take up the matter again; and Steve Costello of CVPS says
"If it could be shown to be safe, we want it,
But there's the rub. Every story coming out of VY over the past two years has provided more reason to believe that it is definitely unsafe to operate the plant beyond it's predicted closure date.
Apparently, supporters think that the sale of VY to a different entity could somehow put things right again; but simple commonsense predicts that any new owner of the antediluvian facility would most likely be regarding it as a strategic liability to be minimally maintained and mined for whatever tax credits or incentives might be available before an unceremonious death- dump on Vermont's front stoop. And a couple of years of marginally cheaper power are supposed to be enough to keep us on the hook? Please... we may be a rural state but we weren't born yesterday!
Some, like Orleans Senator Vince Iluzzi envision a scenario in which the sale of VY to a different entity might allow the NCR (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) to overrule Vermont's Legislature and renew VY's license unilaterally.
"Vermont may not have jurisdiction over Vermont Yankee," said Illuzzi, who voted against the plant in the Senate this year and said if there were a new vote, he's not sure how he would vote.
Now that would be really well-received by fiercely independent Vermonters.
Arne Gundersen, who advises the Legislature on all things nuclear, doubts that the NRC would intrude to such a degree, although he can well see Entergy courting any legal maneuver that might further delay the inevitable shut-down.
That's a little like sending the Lusitania in to rescue the Titanic," he said.
One thing is certain, before that glow-farm on the banks of the Connecticut River is finally shutdown, VY and her owners will have milked every opportunity available for delay.
It was great to hear Peter Shumlin taking the Entergy issue right to Brian Dubie yesterday. As reported on VPR, Shumlin launched a powerful attack on Dubie's pro-Entergy partisanship:
Dubie weakly claimed that he doesn't work for Entergy, although it would be hard for Dubie or Douglas to prove that. Meanwhile, Yankee isn't the only Entergy plant pumping tritium into the water. Down in Massachusetts, the PatriotLedger reports that Entergy's Pilgrim plant is doing the same thing:
Predictably, promoters of Brian Dubie's agenda have seized on the ISO-New England statements about Vermont Yankee's withdrawal from the power auction, to do a little campaign cover-shot. It's no longer possible to link to the editorial content of the St. Albans Messenger, so you will just have to take my word for it that Emerson Lynn's Sept. 1 editorial is all over this opportunity. Get this:
...understandably, the other states in the region cant' be too happy about it. They are already beginning to talk about how the cost should not be borne by them, but by Vermont. If we cause the problem (deny the company its license) then Vermont should share more of the burden in making sure the energy source is replaced.
He goes on...and on...and finally gets to the point of lambasting Peter Shumlin for his opposition to relicensing.
Here is my e-mailed response to Mr. Lynn:
'Looks like another election year fact-check is in order when it comes to the ISO-New England and Vermont Yankee. In your September 1 editorial, you refer to the ISO as "independent." Even though it may be independent of control by any single power supplier, it is nevertheless a vehicle of the energy market as a whole, and so represents the interest of all the companies that supply power in New England. To imply that the ISO is entirely independent of Entergy is therefore somewhat disingenuous.
The ISO's clucking over the possibility that Vermont Yankee soon will not be part of the configuration of power suppliers to New England as a whole is kind of like an entity representing "big dairy" scolding Vermont for wanting to protect it's small dairy farms. As the coordinating arm of an industry dominated by big power corporations, it is unsurprising that they would take a dim view of replacing a plant operated by one of their constituents with alternative sources. If the ISO is indeed suggesting that Vermont should bear more of the burden of replacing the megawatts lost from the grid when VY goes off-line, the idea is absurd. Vermont has hosted Vermont Yankee for forty years, while consuming only a very small portion of its output. For forty years, the state has absorbed all of the risk of hosting the plant on its soil; and when it's gone, we will be the state that must cope with a long-term clean-up issue of unknown proportions.
ISO's sabre-rattling is most unbecoming, and if Brian Dubie is foolish enough to pick-up this line of argument in his campaign for governor, he can well expect that Vermonters will consider this disloyalty rather worse than what was displayed in his recent banner ads announcing that Vermont is in 47th place as one of the least friendly places in which to do business in the United States.
In a 24-page brief to the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) April 30, 2010, Entergy and Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (ENVY) claim that their information belongs to them and to the NRC. Vermont and its intervenors do not have the right to look at information requested by intervenors, the PSB and the Department of Public Service, according to ENVY & Entergy attorneys.
"Entergy VY takes the position that the investigation itself is preempted by the NRC's federal jurisdiction,"
wrote Downs Rachlin Martin Attorney John Marshall in his MOTION TO MODIFY THE PREHEARING CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM AND TO ENLARGE THE TIME FOR ENTERGY VY TO RESPOND TO PENDING DISCOVERY REQUESTS. See the entire document below the fold.
"Discovery is needed to address the issue of preemption," wrote Sandy Levine, CLF's senior counsel, who also rejected Marshall's claim that Yankee's employees were too busy with the outage to respond to the requests.
"A company as large and well-funded as Entergy should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time," she wrote. "To the extent it is not able to do both, it should not be allowed to operate a nuclear facility in the state of Vermont."
Nowhere does federal preemption exclude Entergy and ENVY's obligation to meet NRC General Design Criteria 60 that states:
Criterion 60--Control of releases of radioactive materials to the environment. The nuclear power unit design shall include means to control suitably the release of radioactive materials in gaseous and liquid effluents and to handle radioactive solid wastes produced during normal reactor operation, including anticipated operational occurrences. Sufficient holdup capacity shall be provided for retention of gaseous and liquid effluents containing radioactive materials, particularly where unfavorable site environmental conditions can be expected to impose unusual operational limitations upon the release of such effluents to the environment.
Non-existent buried underground pipes that have leaked tritium into the Connecticut River, are none of our business according to Entergy's attorneys.
Writing for CLF, Levine stated that Entergy's request "perpetuates the continuing efforts ... to hide important information ... They are refusing to provide factual information that is necessary for the board to determine the scope of its authority."
Shut out during the shut down, as once again Entergy tries to control media access to a select few.
When independent documentary filmmaker and public television videographer Robbie Lepzer registered to film a public tour of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (VY), he expected it to be a rather standard process. After all, Entergy regularly admits the press and TV cameras for site tours. This tour, scheduled for Thursday April 29 is for members of the Public Service Board (PSB) and the media.
-------
Update #1
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (together, "Entergy VY"),have determined to allow credentialed media, including Tuming Tide Productions, to take photographs of or film the areas to be visited during the site visit.
[See complete Downs, Rachlin, Martin response to the Public Service Board in last attached document.] Turning Tide Productions is Robbie Leppzer's film company.
-------
Leppzer's shut out during shut down by Entergy has resulted in a PSB demand for information from Entergy as to why a journalist is not being allowed to film when other TV media is filming and has been filming. [Emphasis added.]
MEMORANDUM
To: Parties in PSB Docket No. 7600
From: Susan M. Hudson, Clerk of the Board
Re: Turning Tide Productions' Request to Film Site Visit
Date: April 27, 2010
On April 27, 2010, Robbie Leppzer sent the attached e-mail to the Public Service Board ("Board") requesting that the Board take action to allow Mr. Leppzer to bring television cameras to the site visit in Docket 7600 scheduled for Thursday, April 29. The Board requests that Entergy submit a response to Mr. Leppzer's request by noon on April 28. In particular, the Board requests Entergy to address whether Entergy is permitting news organizations to have television cameras, as Mr. Leppzer indicates. If so, Entergy should explain why Mr. Leppzer is being treated differently from those news organizations. The Board also requests that Entergy explain what, if any, restrictions on cameras are
necessary to ensure that Entergy fulfills its security and safety obligations.
Other parties may also submit comments by the same deadline.
cc: Robbie Leppzer
Leppzer has more than 30-years of documentary film making [see Leppzer's resume below the fold]. In preparation for a documentary film on the relicensing of VY, he has been filming testimony presented to the Legislature and its committees since January when discussion of both the leak and Entergy's request to relicense the nuclear plant began in earnest. Given that Vermont is the only state in the country to have the legal right to decide if VY should receive its Certificate for Public Good (CPG), it makes sense to me that someone would want to create a documentary about this subject. I also expect that Entergy would try to thwart such an effort.
At the very time Entergy is claiming a new policy of openness to Vermont State officials, boards, commissions, the legislature and the media, it has denied Leppzer permission to film the tour even though he is filming for CCTV Channnel 17 out of Burlington, VT in addition to his own documentary work. Leppzer may, as Entergy's Smith informed him, may take the tour, but without any film equipment, a predicament that is challenging for a filmmaker.
Entergy's action has once again put them in the spotlight in a negative way. After being shut out of filming, Leppzer contacted State Representative Sarah Edwards from Brattleboro, who is a member of the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel. Edwards wrote to Entergy requesting that they reconsider their decision and give Leppzer equal access. Smith still denied Leppzer access, so at that time, Leppzer sent the entire packet of email correspondence, herein reproduced below the fold, to the PSB.
The PSB has given Entergy until noon today to explain why they are preventing Leppzer from filming.
More below the fold, including the entire email correspondence between Leppzer and Entergy's Smith.
The bill passed Tuesday evening 11-0. The full Vermont House plans to pass the bill soon and then it moves to the Senate, where lawmakers are also pledging quick action because for legislative leaders this bill is a priority.
"It is 100 percent the primary issue to protect Vermonters from having to pay the cost," said Rep. Tony Klein, D-East Montpelier.
"You have a promise to green field with not one penny in an account to accomplish that point. We now know that the waste is going to be stored there for decades if not 100 years and there is not one penny set aside to manage that waste, so that's why we need to do this bill," Klein said.
The decommissioning bill assures Vermonters that the corporate parent, whatever firm that may be, Entergy or if sold another firm, has enough money to decommission to NRC standards and also enough money to meet Vermont's more rigid greenfield requirements. This requires that the parent company post a guarantee covering decommissioning to a greenfield standard of Entergy's current estimate of $40 million. I personally believe this estimate is too low; discussion follows.
Fairewinds Associates testified on Friday April 5 to the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee regarding the discrepancy on decommissioning costs as projected by TLG Services, now a wholly owned subsidiary of Entergy. See report entitled Fairewinds Cost Comparison TLG Decommissioninghttp://www.leg.state.vt.us/JFO...
Entergy's Rob Williams just sent out the attached press release announcing that the recently labeled NRC workshop has been changed to an Entergy hosted tritium information night.
Brattleboro, Vt. -- Entergy Vermont Yankee will host a tritium information session for the local community at the Ramada Inn on Putney Road on Monday, April 12 from, 4 p.m., to 7:30 p.m. Vermont Yankee engineers who conducted the investigation will be available on a one-on-one basis for discussion of all aspects of how the tritium leak at the plant site occurred as well as how it was identified and stopped.
Jim Matteau, Executive Director of the Windham Regional Commission said he was invited and does intend to attend. Matteau said,
It's going to be Entergy telling its side of the story, and I want to hear it.
Some people have told me that they are confused since the NRC already canceled this April 12 meeting, but an NRC spokesperson informed me that this meeting
is something separate that they were already planning. We are still reviewing our public interactions and venue going forward.
Another public figure said,
I love the irony: Learn more about the leak of radioactive material at WWW.safecleanreliable. com
For me, I guess it is a matter of framing. At least that is what I call it. How many ways does one spin the fact that the underground pipes that were not buried actually began leaking at least one year before the leak was discovered. This information according to Dr. David Ahfeld, an expert in buried pipe and tank corrosion and leakage, who wrote to the state legislature just prior to the February Senate vote that the leak had been ongoing for at least one-year.
When Fairewinds Associates, Inc brought the matter of the allegedly non-existent buried underground pipes to the Legislature's attention last fall, our report was hotly criticized by Entergy. I guess it is a matter of framing because Rob Williams wrote,
While on the subject, we take issue with the entire tone of the consultant's report which leaves the impression that plant reliability is lacking at VY. Issues cited as "significant" are really routine maintenance/repair issues that are routinely handled in the normal course of business in running a steam generating plant. One fact that didn't appear at all in the reliability report was that Vermont Yankee's three-year rolling average of plant reliability is now in the top nine percent among all nuclear plants in the world.
According to the press release,
state and federal agencies that oversaw the tritium investigation have been invited to participate. Refreshments and handouts will be available.
Wow, it almost sounds like a party, except that I imagine the latest tritium science data will be missing, surely they could send some of the allegedly not unhealthful tritiated water home with guests. "Dilution is the solution to pollution," they say.
Dave Gram of the AP has the scoop on that Cesium-37 found at Vermont Yankee in February, which Entergy had tried to fob off on background radiation from 1950s nuclear tests, or Chernobyl, or anything other than that oh-so-reliable plant on the banks of the CT River (enphasis mine). Well, all I can say is "Surprise, surprise, surprise!":
The Health Department statement on Tuesday said the cesium-137 found in the Vermont Yankee soil samples was three to 12 times as high as the background levels attributed to the other causes, meaning it "appears likely the Cs-137 comes from Vermont Yankee reactor related sources."
Vermont Yankee spokesman Larry Smith said he was not surprised by the finding, and that plant officials believe the cesium can be cleaned up as part of their already planned effort to remove some of the soil around plant buildings and ship it off for treatment as low-level radioactive waste.
Two separate items in the "it would be funny but ..." category:
First, according to Susan Smallheeer over at the Rutland Herald, the new NRC resident inspector at the Vernon nuke plant should fit in easily to the Entergy corporate culture: he is one of its own former employees:
The new senior resident inspector from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission worked for Entergy Nuclear, the owner of Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor, until 2006, before he left to become a federal inspector.
But a spokesman for the NRC said David Spindler stopped working for Entergy Nuclear in 2006, well beyond the two-year hiatus federal regulations call for.
Oh, well, then, that's okay. Especially since the NRC spokesman, Neil Sheehan, added this admonishment:
"If an NRC employee faces a conflict of interest, we expect them to discuss it with their supervisors in a timely manner," he said.
Just like the NRC responded to the tritium leak "in a timely manner." Don't we all feel safer now?
Second, Ed Shamy, publisher and editor of The County Courier, a weekly paper out of Enosburg in Franklin County, has editorialized eloquently on a request for bids for a private contractor to make Vermont's license plates ... which are currently made by Vermont prisoners.
Shamy researched the Vermont prison hourly pay rate: 25 cents an hour ranging up to a max of $1.35 an hour:
The state is asking private vendors if they want to make our license plates, and how much they would charge. There could be cost savings to be had, and Vermont is looking beneath every rock and cow pie for cost savings these days.
Well, don't forget that these prisoners also get room and board, not reflected in the hourly wage.
Perhaps hiring a non-jailed Vermonter could be cheaper. Lots of us can only dream of 25 cents per hour. Another option could be a few thousand school-aged children from mainland China who are looking for work outside the fireworks factory.
Shamy's editorial was well done, and includes an explanation of what makes Vermont license plates special: debossing.
(Note: The Courier has limited online access without subscription, but Ed is working on providing a link for us to this editorial, which I'll add later if it works out. Otherwise you can read this week's free content at www.countycourier.com)
It's barely a month ago, but the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United could have a bearing on tomorrow's vote on letting Vermont Yankee's operating license expire on time.
Or maybe I should say that considerations of Citizens Unitedshould have a tremendous bearing on the vote, and here's why. You probably know what the Supreme Court did in Citizens United, and I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that they opened the floodgates to unlimited spending by corporations in political campaigns.
Corporations like Enexus, or Entergy, or whatever they're calling themselves to stay ahead of state scrutiny these days.
You probably get campaign solicitations from political parties every week. In fact, I just got one while I was writing this. If you're like me, whenever you get these calls you think about how important the cause is, what your budget happens to look like that week, and you decide how much you can afford to spend.
If you're Entergy, what's potentially at stake in November's election is whether they get to keep running their plant, so let's take a look at the numbers. On average, Vermont Yankee sells the electricity it generates at about a nickel a kwh, or $50 per Megawatt hour, so every hour their sales are about $31,500, and every day they're running it's about $756,000. In a year that puts their sales at about $276,000,000. Kind of a lot of money, huh?
Now, we have a state Senate (maybe) and five Democratic candidates for governor who are saying they should be required to shut down in 2012, which means shutting off the $276 million spigot. One might think it's worth a lot of money to them to stop that from happening. That's why they're buying all the full-page ads in the paper, running all the TV spots, flying their PR flack up from New Orleansto glad-hand the locals, and offering a sweetheart deal (what? Did you say bribe? I'm shocked!) if we let them keep running.
And their message? The same as Douglas's message: do nothing. They know that Douglas won't be around to carry their heavy water next year, but they can hope that Brian Dubie will follow in Douglas's footsteps, if only they can sit on the ball until November. That's why they are doing what they can to stall a legislative vote this year.
But remember Citizens United? That's the game changer in this fight. Say the Democratic candidate is Peter Shumlin, who has come out strong against relicensing. Or, for that matter, any other D, all of whom favor closing VY. And just say, just for the hell of it, that Dubie has come out in favor of relicensing. (He can't hide forever, right?)
Thanks to Citizens United, if the election in November is between a Democrat who favors shutting down VY and a Republican who favors keeping it open, how much is it worth it to Entergy to keep the plant running? Obviously not three quarters of a million a day, because that's their total sales, but definitely in the millions, right? Tens of millions? What does it cost to pay for a governor and sixteen senators?
If it's still an open question in November, we can expect to see possibly the most expensive election in Vermont history.
The vote's tomorrow, and the Senate should vote No and let VY close.
Okay...I'm going to play a hunch here and suggest that an effort may be afoot to convince our beleaguered legislators that it will be unnecessary to stick their necks out and participate in a vote on relicensing Vermont Yankee. The gist of this fanciful scenario is that, if our lawmakers can resist the impulse to bring the measure to a vote in the 2010 session, Vermont Yankee will make the first move to discontinue its relationship with Vermont, sparing everyone from the discomfort of having to "come out" against relicensing. Yeah, sure; and if you go for that one, I've got waterfront property in Death Valley that might interest you.
Update: A story in the The Rutland Herald identifies the engineer who gave the misleading responses to the Panel as David McElwee, Entergy's public liaison officer, and has VY officials admitting that they "should have been more thorough" in responding to the Public Oversight Panel's questions. The Herald quotes from an August 13 e-mail sent by McElwee to panel member Arnie Gundersen, state nuclear engineer, Uldis Vanags, and Sarah Hofmann, public advocacy director for the Department of Public Service:
As for your outstanding question on underground piping goes, Act 189 requested that an underground piping system carrying radionuclides be part of the inspection...we have none. Since this is not an item active in the review of ... recommendations, we consider this issue closed.
In a press release, Gundersen states that
The Panel was informed that there were no systems with underground piping that carry radioactivity at VY
It seems that Entergy just can't quit stepping all over its own feet in the effort to court approval for a VY license extension. In light of the recent revelation that there has been a tritium contamination of groundwater at Vermont Yankee, it appears that ENVY was less than forthcoming in its representation to the Vermont Yankee Public Oversight Panel in 2008 that there was no radioactivity in VY's underground pipe system.
Is anyone else tired of Entergy's rather lame PR push to gain support for relicensing Vermont Yankee?
If so, you will enjoy the entertaining and informative parody posted by VY challenger Fake-Rob Williams. You see, Fake-Rob Williams (a parody of VY official spokesman, Rob Williams) has discovered that the link provided on Entergy's "I Am Vermont Yankee" site for the public to post their presumably supportive comments about VY is, in fact, non-functional.
Leaping into the breach, Fake-Rob Williams has helpfully provided an alternative site for readers comments called "I Love Vermont Yankee." Against a bubblegum pink background, "I Love Vermont Yankee" echos the features on Entergy's "I am Vermont Yankee" website, offering smiling celebrity pics as stand-ins for the suspiciously homogenized representations of "actual" VY employees that appear on the Entergy site. Fake-Rob makes his own comments on Vermont Yankee; remarks that he repeatedly tried to submit on the "I am Vermont Yankee" site over the course of an entire day, finding that they NEVER appeared in the queue of that day's submissions. Fake-Rob's comments were a series of "helpful" reminders of the many embarrassing faux pas committed by VY and it's employees over the recent past.
(Bumped up, do to some fairly substantive updates below the fold. - promoted by JulieWaters)
Some time ago, I wrote about the fenceline limits at VT Yankee. Basically, we were looking at two different ways of interpreting the amount of radiation leaked by VT Yankee, one of which tried to look at the amount actually released, the other of which tried to look at how much the human body will absorb. This allowed Entergy to compare numbers under one formula, and then under another, and say it had only had a small change from one year to the next.
It's kind of like saying that someone grew around 61cm in a year, because one year they were measured in inches and the next in cm. Exact same size, but different measurement standards.
Per today's Rutland Herald, once again from Susan Smallheer:
Entergy Nuclear said the new standard would cut radiation limits by 30 percent to 40 percent.
Robert Williams, spokesman for Entergy Nuclear, said the state already had the most stringent radiation standard in the country.
"We have always committed to meet the state's 20 millirem limit not a 20 milli roentgen," he wrote in an e-mail, referring to the different measurements for radiation release versus radiation absorption.
See, here's the thing: the new ruling doesn't cut radiation limits. It eliminates a loophole that Entergy used (with the help of the Douglas administration) to bypass radiation limits. Now that there's a proposal to remove that loophole, Entergy is whining about it, and talking about their commitment, not to the actual law, but to what they think the law should be.
But the long and short of it is that this is really good news.
Missed this yesterday, so I am quoting today from yesterday's Prog Blog:
Entergy Resolution
Morgan Daybell February 9th, 2009
Yesterday, the State Committee of the Progressive Party voted unanimously to support the following resolution, modeled after the resolutions being warned across the state for town meeting day:
The State Committee of the Vermont Progressive Party requests the Vermont Legislature to:
1. Recognize that the 2% of our New England region's power grid supply that is provided by Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plantcan be replaced with a combination of local, renewable electricity and efficiency measures, along with the purchase of hydro generated electricity, and excess power already in the New England electricity market;
2. Given the viable alternatives and the risks posed by continued operation, ensure that Vermont Yankee will cease operation in March 2012, after having completed its 40 year design life by not granting approval for operation of the plant after that date and by not determining that further operation will promote the general welfare;
3. Hold the Entergy Corporation, which purchased Vermont Yankee in 2002, responsible to fully fund the plant's clean-up and decommissioning when the reactor closes, as the corporation pledged to do when it purchased Vermont Yankee.
Progressives in attendance pledged to support the town meeting resolutions, and the broader effort to close Entergy's Vernon plant in 2012.
Is anyone else tired of Entergy's rather lame PR push to gain support for relicensing Vermont Yankee?
