Entergy CEO: Utility Wants Vermont Yankee to Keep Running

1. John, 1.) Lawyers against Entergy keep raising the issue, that doesn’t mean it applies. They can argue that tritium leaks contaminate the ground water and that’s a land use issue, but considering it naturally decays in roughly 7 days that pretty much null in voids their concerns. Moreover groundwater like the CT river is not VT’s to be concerned with. 2.) Needs, here your mistake is the idea that if VT doesn’t need the energy they have the option to shut it down. Since we are all part of the grid that doesn’t apply, that energy is provided and sold over state lines. Needs is not something for the state to decide. Moreover, please indicate your figures on needs. My count is we lost 1/3rd from VY, there was also a decrease in the contract with HQ from our current contract. THere is a token amount of wind, methane, solar, but it may be able to compensate for the loss in HQ power at best. Ergo we are still missing a contract for roughly 1/3rd of VT’s power needs. I know you favor buying off the spot. I don’t believe that’s a viable alternative. We can agree to disagree.Finally, the Legislature led by Shumlin appointed a Blue Ribbon Committee to asses VY and it’s ability to provide safe and reliable power. Their conclusion was that they could, albiet with a change of management priorities or something to that effect. I forget how they actually worded it. But lets simplify :You believe that there is an excess of power and are willing to bank on that fact as well as that it will continue through the next 20years.I don’t think that’s the case, and am not comfortable going without contracted power for nearly a third of the states power needs. You cite testimony by experts…. great, acknowledge their is expert testimony on both sides with both opinions. You believe the state has authority to shut down VY.I think it’s a crock. Very simply, a court will decide. I am willing to wager $100 to the charity of your choice that VY is operating in 2013. Let me know if you are.

2. Yes, JCarter, we have had this discussion before. Apparently, you’re a slow learner. Let’s take your points in order:1) You write: “PC&G does NOT control here, you cite a 1983 deciscion [sic] that has been raised to the PSB and dispelled in responding documents.” Actually, every one of the briefs by ALL of the parties on the subject of federal preemption centers around the 1983 decision, for the obvious reason that it’s the controlling decision. Entergy (and its junior partner IBEW) attempt to bend the decision over backwards, contorting the clear language of the Court. All of the other parties, including the Department of Pubic Service under David O’Brien, address the decision straightforwardly. Had Entergy’s interpretation been accepted by the PSB, presumably Docket 7600 would have ended several months ago, since Entergy’s position is that the Board has NO jurisdiction. But as the New England Coalition brief pointed out, Entergy has raised precisely the same arguments repeatedly before the Board in a succession of dockets, only to be shot down in each case. The Board has yet to issue a ruling on the matter in Docket 7600. (I should add, if the preemption issue been as obvious as you think it is, Docket 7600 would never have been opened.)It is important to add, in any case, that Docket 7600, since it concerns leaks of radioactive materials, especially tritium, is inherently more subtle than the issue of relicensing from a preemption point of view. Are the leaks to be viewed from the perspective of groundwater contamination — usually a state issue — or are they part of the “nuclear aapects” of nuclear power referred to in PG&E, which would make them a federal matter? By re-raising the issue at the end of your comments, and emphasizing the words “to the extent that,” you underscore my last point: Docket 7600 is much more complicated, from a legal point of view, than the issue of relicensing. You put it quite well: “The PSB can not consider the radiological aspect of the plant or safety issues surrounding radiological exposure,” yet in the case of VY’s tritium leaks, the Board is left with deciding whether groundwater contamination is or isn’t an issue of radiological exposure.By contrast, the thousands of pages of testimony on which the legislature based its decision last year had NOTHING to do with safety. Instead, they concerned financial, economic, ratemaking, alternative energy and other areas, with virtually NO attention given to nuclear safety, precisely because it is a preempted matter. There was an examination of whether the plant could operate reliably for the next 20 years, but it played a relatively minor role in the testimony and decision. The legislature acted in exactly the areas PG&E says it can, precisely because it was cognizant of and had been advised about the law, as you pointed out yourself in your previous comment. The first briefing on the topic was by former Board chair Mike Dworkin on November 19, 2008, and cited, wait for it, the very words of the PG&E decision I quoted in my previous comment (see slides 10-11: “Does Federal Law Trump State Regulation?)2) You overlook the obvious meaning of the NRC quote when you write: “Secondly, your quote from the NRC provides a facility may not be run……blah blah blah refers to the fact the OWNERS may not wish to operate it. It has nothing to do with a state legislature deciding that fact.” Let’s try the quote again: “… the NRC does not have a role in the energy-planning decisions of state regulators…” And taking the owners out to simplify this for you: “From the perspective of … the state regulatory authority, the purpose of renewing a license is to maintain the availability of the nuclear facility to meet energy requirements beyond the current term of the facility’s license. Thus, whether the facility will continue to operate is based on factors such as the need for power or other matters within the state’s jurisdiction ….” The NRC properly believes the matter is shared between its own authority in matters of safety and the “nuclear aspects” of nuclear power, the State, in its “traditional” role, and (of course) the owners who have their own issues and perspectives. 3) “So there is a question of safety and need. That’s what the state can try and base a court case on.” This is just plain wrong. First, the question of safety is precisely the one the state can NOT raise to defend itself. Second, need for power is NOT the only issue on which it CAN base its decision. If it were, the case would be simple. New England is swimming in power; VY isn’t needed. In fact, there’s roughly 8 times more EXCESS power than VY generates. There was plenty of testimony before the legislature to precisely this effect.Significant issues concerning Entergy’s ability and willingness to properly decommission the plant, the timing of decommissioning, and whether or not Entergy would comply with the terms of its MOU to return the site to a green field were raised both in the legislative testimony and in Public Service Board testimony, briefs, and hearings. The Enexus deal was still pending during legislative consideration and Entergy officials insisted that they would move forward with relicensing ONLY if the Enexus deal were accepted. The VY power contract offered to and rejected by Vermont utilities actually came from Enexus, NOT from Entergy. Without naming names, I suspect that several senate votes were lost because of the tremendous skepticism and downright repugnance the attempted Enexus spin-off rightly caused in the legislature. Other issues included the legislature’s desire to move towards renewable sources of power and towards greater efficiency, the utilities’ expressed desire to diversify their energy portfolios, not to mention, of course, the key issue of rate impacts. Many more topics were raised and discussed at considerable length during both legislative and Board testimony. All of these areas are perfectly legitimate to consider from a preemption point of view, and in fact, most of them aren’t considered by the NRC, again because they fall under State, not federal, jurisdiction.4) “Well we are still missing about half of our power needs, so that’s a tough sell.” This is just plain silly. As pointed out above, New England is awash in power. VY has been supplying about 1/3, not 1/2, of VT’s needs under the existing contract, and ALL parties are agreed that this figure should be lower, EVEN IF the plant continues to operate. As pointed out above, the utilities are quite clear on their desire to diversify away from VY in ANY case. The proposed VY contract was for roughly 1/6, not 1/2 of VT’s power needs. As to whether ANY of the power needed to supply VT is “still missing” after all the deals announced in the last 2 years, I really can’t say. But whatever the figure is, if any, it’s got to be quite low, and easily made up in diverse ways. The easiest, though far from the cleanest or best, would be a market power purchase. The best, cleanest, and cheapest would be from increasing the State’s efficiency programs.5) There is no “Blue Ribbon Shumlin appointed commission,” though as governor, he’s announced he plans to appoint one to consider decommissioning issues. There is an Oversight panel, only one member of which was appointed by Shumlin (as Majority leader of the Senate), and it did NOT declare VY to be “safe,” precisely again, because that is NOT an issue for the State to consider. It declared that, if some 90 conditions were met (few of which have been), the plant could probably operate reliably for the next 20 years.

3. John Greenberg, you are incorrect on so many levels and We have had this discussions. If you would like to continue to ignore relevant court decisions and precedent and misread things that’s your business. For accuracy :PC&G does NOT control here, you cite a 1983 deciscion that has been raised to the PSB and dispelled in responding documents. Secondly, your quote from the NRC provides a facility may not be run……blah blah blah refers to the fact the OWNERS may not wish to operate it. It has nothing to do with a state legislature deciding that fact. So there is a question of safety and need. That’s what the state can try and base a court case on. Need? Well we are still missing about half of our power needs, so that’s a tough sell. Safety… well considering the NRC, the VT dept of Health, and Blue Ribbon Shumlin appointed commission all deemed VY to be safe… that’s a pretty tough sell to. So what safety issues can they raise? Senators were told what their authority was before they voted. They are not within their authority here and Entergy will continue operation of VY long after 2012. The basis of pre-emption from the PSB “[the Board is] not preempted from taking action in response to the leaks atVermont Yankee, to the extent that the leaks may have economic and other nonradiological-health-and-safety consequences”Notice John Greenberg “TO THE EXTENT THAT” The PSB can not consider the radiological aspect of the plant or safety issues surrounding radiological exposure. Only if there is an economic or non-radiological saftey consequence. Interestingly they only note the lack of decomissioning money. Now that seems to be an easy fix for Entergy if they want to continue to operate. Heck, since they can sell ALL the power and not add millions to the clean energy fund, bumping up the decomissioning fund should be a drop in the bucket.

4. JCarter tells us: “The legislature was informed of the premption issue before they voted.” What he neglects to tell us is the substance of what they were told. Quite simply, legislators were advised that they were not allowed to consider nuclear safety issues, but that power planning and other economic considerations were, to coin a phrase, fair game for State consideration.Current law is guided by the Pacific Gas and Electric case (PG & E v. State Energy Comm’n, 461 U.S. 190 (1983), in which the Supreme Court declared: “From the passage of the Atomic Energy Act in 1954, through several revisions, and to the present day, Congress has preserved the dual regulation of nuclear powered electricity generation: the Federal Government maintains complete control of the safety and “nuclear” aspects of energy generation, whereas the States exercise their traditional authority over economic questions such as the need for additional generating capacity, the type of generating facilities to be licensed, land use, and ratemaking.” The NRC, unlike JCarter, understands this. Here’s NRC’s answer to an apposite question: “1.2.10 Who makes the decision to actually continue operating the nuclear power facility during the license renewal period once the license renewal is granted?It is possible that a license renewal application could satisfy the NRC’s safety and environmental reviews and still not operate. This is because the NRC does not have a role in the energy-planning decisions of state regulators and licensee officials. From the perspective of the applicant and the state regulatory authority, the purpose of renewing a license is to maintain the availability of the nuclear facility to meet energy requirements beyond the current term of the facility’s license. Thus, whether the facility will continue to operate is based on factors such as the need for power or other matters within the state’s jurisdiction or the financial interests of the owners.”Indeed, Entergy also understood this when they bought the plant in 2002 and signed a “Memorandum of Understanding,” which includes the following: “12. Board Approval of Operating License Renewal: The signatories to this MOU agree that any order issued by the Board granting approval of the sale of VYNPS to ENVY and any Certificate of Public Good (“CPG”) issued by the Board to ENVY and ENO will authorize operation of the VYNPS only until March 21, 2012 and thereafter will authorize ENVY and ENO only to decommission the VYNPS. Any such Board order approving the sale shall be so conditioned, and any Board order issuing a CPG to ENVY and ENO shall provide that operation of VYNPS beyond March 21, 2012 shall be allowed only if application for renewal of authority under the CPG to operate the VYNPS is made and granted. Each of VYNPC, CVPS, GMP, ENVY and ENO expressly and irrevocably agrees: (a) that the Board has jurisdiction under current law to grant or deny approval of operation of the VYNPS beyond March 21, 2012 and (b) to waive any claim each may have that federal law preempts the jurisdiction of the Board to take the actions and impose the conditions agreed upon in this paragraph to renew, amend or extend the ENVY CPG and ENO CPG to allow operation of the VYNPS after March 21, 2012, or to decline to so renew, amend or extend.”Despite attempts to read more into his comments than was actually stated, I believe Mr. Leonard knows that as well. Given that, in his words “at best” VY “has simply covered its fully allocated overhead,” there appears to be exceedingly little (actually, nothing) to motivate Entergy to undertake an expensive lawsuit, which they already know they can’t win. Time will tell.

5. @ JCarter:”Jurisdiction”?First, to understand that concept you would have to have a degree from an accredited college, and we’re talking about the Vermont legislature here . . . Nuff said.Second, even assuming the average VT legislator understands the concept of federal pre-emption, they don’t give a sh__ because it isn’t convenient and doesn’t fit with their model of corporate-bashing.

6. The legislature was informed of the premption issue before they voted. The vote was a publicity stunt by Shummy for his campaign, and one that will cost VT. VY was offering a rate that was equiv or less to that of HQ, but no deals were struck because of the legislative “block”. The NRC will claim jurisdiction which they have, and Entergy will sell all their energy on the spot market and let VTer’s pay twice as much. In the meantime, gone is the contribution to the clean energy fund and other hoops they currently jump through. All because Shumlin wants to pull a power trip. Thanks Petey. VY/Entergy has tried to negotiate with the state to no avail and tried to appease legislators. I hope they file the suit and keep running, and I hope the media will report it as well as the the fact that all this was told to the Legislature BEFORE the vote. Then please print a list of legislators that voted to ignore the NRC’s jurisdiction.

7. “…the fact is the 40-year life was based on the expected economic life, not the physical life, that nuclear plants were designed for.”Seriously? Because I always thought the longer one keeps an investment alive, the greater the return. Works for real estate, equities, etc. because debt becomes a thing of the past and profits become gravy.Somebody serve this guy a nice tall glass of Entergy well water….

8. This is the State of Federalism in 2011. Unelected regulators acting like George III.

9. “What are the odds they’ll say yes? To date the NRC has yet to deny a license extension.”Maybe that’s because based on the science — and not on the fear, passion, prejudice, and paranoia — the extensions were justified.

10. He says one thing… “We are looking for support from the people of Vermont” and then issues a thinly veiled threat… “we’re being pushed into a bit of a corner here and there is a point where there is a line in the sand and we’ll have to determine if we’ll push forward or not.”Just do what we say, and nobody gets hurt. Release the hounds (lawyers)… I hope someone or some group (state or private) is getting ready to sue Entergy for lying to and damaging the State of Vermont and its citizens. Maybe they can be “persuaded” as part of a settlement of a class action lawsuit (or and endless series of individual lawsuits) to drop any efforts to stay open beyond 2012.

Comments are closed.