It was the first topic that Entergy CEO J Wayne Leonard tackled in the utility’s quarterly earnings call with investors and reporters: What is the future of Vermont Yankee?
“We are committed to maintaining open and timely communications however great the challenge is for gaining public support and disproving a negative that the age of the plant is determinate of its condition, as is essentially the position the governor took last month,” said Leonard.
Leonard then quoted Gov. Peter Shumlin as saying VY was “designed to shut down in 2012 and that 40 years is up in 2012.” Leonard said this echoed campaign statements Shumlin made, including: “It’s old it’s tired and it should be retired.”
Leonard said the governor is encouraging his counterpart in New York to take a similar approach and oppose the relicensing of Indian Point.
“While states and governors are certainly free to voice their opinions,” Leonard added, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “which has jurisdiction in these matters must deal with the facts. And the fact is the 40-year life was based on the expected economic life, not the physical life, that nuclear plants were designed for.”
Leonard also said despite the tritium leaks and component failures in recent years, Vermont Yankee has remained a reliable power producer and generated cash for Entergy.
“For all the pessimists out there, and I’m sure there may be a few, one thing you should know and that has not been communicated well, Vermont Yankee, at best, has completely covered its overhead,” added Leonard.
One year ago, Vermont Yankee learned of two underground pipes that were leaking tritium into the groundwater. The leaks were from pipes that Entergy executives had previously told lawmakers and the Public Service Board never existed. Attorney General BIll Sorrell is still investigating whether Entergy officials lied under oath.
“I had a status meeting within the past two weeks and am hoping for a decision during the time frame of late March to late April,” Sorrell told Seven Days. Sorrell has had to recently shift some of the legal team working on the Entergy case to a pending U.S. Supreme Court challenge of a state law, which allows physicians to have their prescribing information kept private from pharmaceutical companies and marketers.
The NRC estimates that more than three million gallons of tritiated water have been released into the groundwater. To date, about 340,000 gallons have been extracted from the ground and treated offsite. State health officials believe the leak began in 2009 and was only discovered and reported in 2010.
Recently, Entergy began to find trace amounts of tritium in wells well outside the known tritium plume, causing them to test for additional leaks. To date, two pipes have been tested and they do not appear to have leaks.
Entergy has been replacing underground and buried pipes and has additional plans to replace pipes during an October refueling outage. Whether it will refuel in October — something it does every 18 months — remains a question mark.
Entergy’s earnings call comes on the heels of Gov. Shumlin’s announcement last week that he has set up a “reliability oversight panel” to delve more deeply into how Vermont Yankee can be shut down on time. In addition, Public Service Commissioner Liz Miller has reconvened the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel. The seven-member panel had largely been defunct under her predecessor. The panel will hold its first meeting on Feb. 20 Feb. 22* in Vernon.
A Senate vote last year — orchestrated by then-Senate President Pro Tem Shumlin — effectively put a halt to the state Public Service Board’s review of VY’s request for a renewed certificate of public good. Meanwhile the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission is closing in on making a final up or down decision on VY’s application to keep running another 20 years.
What are the odds they’ll say yes? To date the NRC has yet to deny a license extension.
And, what happens if the NRC doesn’t act before next year when the current operating license expires? Here’s what the NRC itself notes in a 100-plus page FAQ about nuclear power licenses:
Question: “What happens if the review of a license renewal application is not completed before the current license expires?”
Answer: “If the applicant files a sufficiently complete application for renewal of its operating license at least five years before the existing license expires but the renewal of the license is delayed because of administrative or judicial appeal, then the existing license will still be considered valid until a final decision on the renewal application has been made.’”
In other words, VY could argue a year from now that it has a legit license to keep running. And, who’s to stop them? Would the state take Entergy to court or the NRC? As noted last year in Seven Days, the idea of Entergy filing a federal pre-emption lawsuit isn’t completely out of the question.
Will Entergy play that card? Leonard wouldn’t say in today’s earnings call, but he did say the time is nigh to make a decision on how the utility will proceed.
“We are looking for support from the people of Vermont and we are looking for support from the utilities,” said Leonard. “We want to be regarded as good partners with Vermont, but at the same time in some respects 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.”
Leonard said recent comments by the state’s largest private employer IBM that its power needs would increase, coupled with calls from various manufacturers and the region’s grid operator that VY provides stable and reliable power all weigh in their favor.
Leonard expects that by mid-year Entergy will have a new power purchase agreement with in-state utilities.
*This post has been updated to correct the date of the VSNAP meeting.
This article appears in Feb 9-15, 2011.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Webber, They can just stop by the magic money tree that Shumlin has growing in the Gov’s office.
“Wind and Solar wouldn’t exist without VY and they won’t grow any further if VY were to be shut down.”Dammit, JCarter, why do you insist on bumming us out with depressing facts like this? I’m sure that Vermonters would be happy to step up to the plate and shell out the hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidize wind and solar after we kill off VY and its CEDF money!That is, any Vermonters who are still employed after VY is dead, and after they’ve paid double their current elecricity bill. At that point, I’m sure, when asked, all the unemployed VYers, and all the unemployed IBMers, will joyfully say, “Sure, in addition to the huge per-KW-hour rates I’m now seeing on my electricity bill, please ALSO hit me with a surtax to replenish the Clean Energy Development Fund that VY is no longer funding.” Hmm. But then they might say, “Hey, wait. Aren’t I ALREADY paying a lot for that wind power in the rates on my electricity bill? And now you also want me to pay a separate surtax to fund the subsidy fee for the development of that very same wind power? Isn’t that, um, a double whammy? So, instead of paying $.06 per KW hour for my electricity, I’m now effectively paying $.30 when you add in my surtax for the CEDF?”Yup.
“And even if we put all those turbines up, and even if they produced power all the time, they do so only at an enormous subsidy.”The real kicker of this… it’s VY that provides all the money for the Clean Energy Development Fund that coughs up the millions to the likes of Bittersdorf et al. Wind and Solar wouldn’t exist without VY and they won’t grow any further if VY were to be shut down.
@ Greenberg:Apparently, absolutely and positively nobody but you believes that Vermont can “save” or renewable-ize” our way out of the need for reliable, inexpensive baseload power at any time in the near future.Nobody’s building a biomass plant in Vermont (because you and all your friends would fight it being in your town), and even if we put 100 wind turbines on every peak in Vermont tomorrow (which the NIMBYists will also fight), it still wouldn’t provide but a fraction of the $.06 per killowat hour energy we currently get from VY, and it wouldn’t be on all the time. And even if we put all those turbines up, and even if they produced power all the time, they do so only at an enormous subsidy.Jesus. Put the goddam bong down and check out reality.Shutting down VY will kill the Vermont economy, which is already fragile enought as it is.
Because I think Shummy is a snake has no effect on my opinion of VY or our energy needs. That type of disrespect should look like disrespect, if it looks like anything else, perhaps you should alter your perspective. I’m sure if you tried hard enough you could work in a Bush or Palin quip somewhere. As for the price of energy, yes Entergy’s OFFER had an inflation tie in. So? Do you really think the spot market will stay stable for 20 years? Will inflation sky rocket? HQ has a similar provision and the same price (which was a “good deal” according to the power companies. So is HQ a bad deal? Moreover it is AN OFFER! Do you think perhaps if GMP said we’ll buy X KWH for 5.5 cents they would turn it down? Do you think they wouldn’t negotiate with power companies if the Legislature decided to let PSB give them a CPG? Of course not. You know numbers Doug…. figure it out.
JCarterThe price of Entergy’s last offer would have been pegged to market prices and would have escalated over time. And you can bet their next offer will do the same.As for bias, you are the one who referred to our new governor as “Shummy” and “Petey.” That kind of disrespect looks a lot like bias to me.
1.) You should spend a little more time looking at the case that will go against Entergy. You have a clear bias and currently you are not looking at things from an impartial viewpoint. Which essentially makes these arguments pointless.2.)The spot market is lower then contracted rates TODAY, it’s unlikely that in 20 years from now they will be. 3.) John was Shumlin in charge of the Legislature when the oversight Panel was created? Of course he was, thus it was a Shumlin created panel. 4.) The NRC has stated that the Tritium leaks at the plant are not at levels that constitute a hazard. That the plant is operating safely.
“Webber” raises a few new issues and repeats some old ones:1) No, I’m not an attorney. But I have made an in-depth study of federal preemption issues as they pertain to nuclear power. I spoke to some of the best lawyers in Vermont (and outside) who work in this narrow area of law on an ongoing basis, and read every case to which they could direct me or that I could find. I rechecked my conclusions with further conversations, just to make certain I wasn’t missing anything.But my qualifications are hardly the issue here. The question is: what does case law say? I’ve quoted it; I’ve noted that every attorney (whether supporting or opposing the idea that the State is preempted) in Docket 7600 centers their brief around the same opinion, and I note that no one has presented anything whatever to contest this except some general rhetoric. If there is an argument against my summary of the issue, let’s hear it. Otherwise, it’s time to move on.2) Webber writes: “… there’s absolutely no dispute that: “a) the replacement cost, which will be bought on the spot market, will definitely be higher …” There most certainly IS a dispute about that. Indeed, current evidence suggests precisely the opposite: namely, that IF replacement power is bought at market prices, its cost will be (slightly) lower than the contract proposed by Entergy (actually Enexus) for VY power. As I have noted before, however, there are MANY ways to replace this power, with a considerable range of costs involved.”b) that replacement power WILL come from polluting coal-fired power plants (from the very same companies that the Vermont AG is now suing for sending their airborne pollution into VT)…” Around 10% of the power on the New England grid comes from coal, and as noted, grid power is NOT the only alternative.”c) the money that is spent on that replacement power will not be going to VT workers and taxpayers.” This is certainly true IF the replacement power comes from the grid or from out-of-state power contracts (some of which have already been signed). That’s precisely why, 2 years ago, my colleague Michael Daley and I wrote a report recommending that VY power be replaced by a combination of increased efficiency efforts and Vermont based renewables, especially wind and biomass. A 2007 DPS report shows that efficiency alone can account for up to 215 MW in VT by 2015, while saving the state just shy of $1 billion. (The spreadsheets and writings I developed with and without Michael use a MUCH lower figure in order to be extremely conservative). This “power” would cost somewhat less than 1/2 of the VY proposed contract, and could therefore offset more expensive wind and biomass developments in a balanced portfolio. Again, depending on the precise details of how such a portfolio is constructed, ratepayer impact should be minimal, and hundreds to thousands of new Vermont jobs would be created, vastly offsetting those lost at VY. Energy Efficiency Vermont alone already employs about 1/3 of the workforce of VY, at current much lower levels of efficiency promotion.3) For the 3rd time, the Oversight Panel — which JCarter and now Webber insist on calling the “blue ribbon” panel — was NOT put together by Shumlin. Shumlin appointed one member, who was a nuclear utility executive for 20 years. As to Shumlin’s motivations and actions, I’ll let him speak for himself. As to the Oversight Panel’s conclusion, readers should consult the report. I’ve twice commented that its conclusion is quite guarded: namely, that if around 90+ measures are taken, VY should be able to operate reliably. My grandmother could have lived forever, if only she had replaced her heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, etc. etc.4) “So now we have not only the NRC experts repeatedly saying that the plant is safe…” Actually, the NRC has yet to rule. That’s precisely the function of their relicensing proceedings, and which are still ongoing. I have no doubt the NRC WILL come to that conclusion however: they always do.
@ Mr. Greenberg:1. Are you a lawyer? Do you specialize in federal pre-emption and/or jurisdictional issues? I don’t see you listed as a Vermont-licensed attorney.2. Everything I’ve read says that if you pass through the security scanner a couple of times a year at an airport, you’ve been exposed to far more radiation thatn you could ever get from drinking the low-leve tritiated water at issue at the VY plant. Do you have any actual “facts” that say otherwise?3. Yes, the utilities say they can replace the lost VY power but there’s absolutely no dispute that: a) the replacement cost, which will be bought on the spot market, will definitely be higher; b) that replacement power WILL come from polluting coal-fired power plants (from the very same companies that the Vermont AG is now suing for sending their airborne pollution into VT); and c) the money that is spent on that replacement power will not be going to VT workers and taxpayers.4. Not only did the blue ribbon panel put together by VY-hating Shumlin say that VY could be operated safely well into the future, but you fail to point out the very significant fact that that panel included Shumlin’s hand-picked VY-basher, Arnie Gunderson, and he, too, was on board with the panel’s conclusion. So even when Shumlin stakced the deck, the conclusion didn’t come out the way he wanted it to, so now he’s just ignoring his own panel for purely political reasons.5. So now we have not only the NRC experts repeatedly saying that the plant is safe, but we have a committee of Vermont homegrown experts (including at least one well-known critic of VY) saying the very same thing.All of which proves to me that the anti-nuke ideologues don’t care about what any expert says if it doesn’t support their already-formed conclusion that VY must be shut down.
JCarter can make up “facts” faster than anyone can answer them. I assume, since there is now no response to any of the previously raised issues that he or she now concedes those points. So, moving on:1) “Lawyers against Entergy keep raising the issue, that doesn’t mean it applies.” I assume “the issue” here means preemption. Actually, it’s Entergy, not the lawyers against Entergy, which keeps making claims of preemption in Board preceedings. But in Docket 7600, the Public Service Board itself asked for briefing on the issue. For the reasons I previously sketched, preemption is a knotty issue in the tritium case. 2) “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 …” Tritium has a half life of 12.26 years, which means that in that period of time, 1/2 of its radioactivity will have decayed. The usual rule of thumb is that a radioactive substance is considered no longer hazardous after 10 half-lives, or, in this case, 122.6 years. As usual, JCarter is simply inventing “facts” to suit his or her case.3) Need for electricity. First, let’s note that it was JCarter him or herself who brought this up, as one of the 2 possible items for a preemption defense. That said:a) “your mistake is the idea that if VT doesn’t need the energy they have the option to shut it down.” If this is a legal argument, I’ve responded to it more than once. I take it, however, to now be shifting to a policy argument, clarified by:b) “Since we are all part of the grid that doesn’t apply, that energy is provided and sold over state lines.” True enough. The surplus is, in fact, in the whole New England grid system. The ISO system requires about 32,000 MW including reserve capacity (it actually uses about 28,000 MW at peak). In the last 3 auctions, offers came to around 40,000 MW, meaning that there were offers of roughly 8,000 MW more than is needed. VY generates 640 MW.Neither a) nor b) leads to the conclusion:c) “Needs is not something for the state to decide.” Indeed, nothing leads us there, since it is ABSOLUTELY something for the state to decide, both as a matter of policy and as a question of law. Obviously, in making that decision, states consider testimony from utilities, regulators, and other experts, as well they should.4) As to trying to estimate Vermont’s own power needs in the future with any kind of precision, many of the facts are not available to the public, and most of the contract information that is available is released piecemeal, making it very difficult to tally. Suffice it to say that the utilities, whose job it is to keep the lights on, have testified that they can and will replace VY power if necessary (although both GMP and CVPS support continued VY operations). More substantive discussion is for another time and place (I have written amply on this subject elsewhere).5) “… the Legislature led by Shumlin appointed a Blue Ribbon Committee to asses[sic] VY and it’s [sic] ability to provide safe and reliable power.” Actually, Shumlin, as then-Senate Majority Leader, appointed one member of the Oversight Panel, then-Speaker Symington appointed another, and then-Governor Douglas appointed a third. These 3 members then appointed the other 2. The Panel found the plant could be operated reliably in the future, IF a variety of conditions were met. Many haven’t been.