Poll: Vermonters Say Yes to Vermont Yankee, Single-Payer Health Care

1. “Just keep repeating to yourself that Shumlin’s partisan electoral ambitions had nothing to do with the current situation.” I never said any such thing. Tom Buchanan came closer to suggesting this, but he can speak for himself.I merely noted what you note, yet again. Shumlin’s position on this issue CHANGED some time in 2009. There is nothing “internally inconsistent” about noting that change.The answer to your other question is identical: ‘Shumlin has made it quite clear that he believes VY should be shut down because it is unsafe. So how can you possibly say that Shumlin would have let an unsafe (in his mind) plant run IF the power pricing was right?” I’m NOT saying he would do so now. Clearly, he wouldn’t and can’t politically. (It’s possible that Tom disagrees with me on this point). But that was NOT true before he decided to make this a central tenet of his campaign for governor, which is the time frame we’ve been talking about.I’ll be more specific. Peter Shumlin was my senator before he was governor. A friend and I met with him as constituents in July 2008 to discuss this issue. We discussed many VY-related issues, almost all economic. I came away from this meeting convinced that, if Entergy offered the right deal and the politics looked right to him, Peter would support the deal. That, of course, is just my opinion. All I can say factually is that nothing he said to us contradicted that statement or made me comfortable at the time that he would oppose relicensing come what may.Finally, I’m getting a bit tired of hearing about my “well-established, pre-existing anti-VY bias.” First, I’ve never made any bones about where I’m coming from: I’ve been an anti-nuclear activist for 25+ years, and have never suggested otherwise. Second, I have made a considerable effort, here and elsewhere, to stick to the facts in what I write, or, when not doing so, to acknowledge openly that I’m expressing my opinion. I have been challenged dozens of times on my facts, and have, in all but 2 instances that I can recall, documented them and provided sources. If memory serves me well, there was one occasion on this site where I got it wrong, and immediately admitted my error. Maybe it’s time that you and some of your colleagues do the same. Third, isn’t it time for you to admit to your own completely unacknowledged PRO-VY bias? And once you do, you can stop repeating your mantra about me and others. Few of us who have given this issue any thought at all are unbiased or objective. Nuclear power is a divisive issue, and those who’ve considered it with any care mostly come down on one side or the other. Let me put it this way. I can’t think of anyone I know who is not on one side or the other of this issue: we’re all partisans and the sooner we admit it and move on, the better.

2. “What Tom and I are pointing out is simply this: had Entergy behaved differently when it mattered, it is highly probable that we would be having a completely different discussion today.”Feel free to believe that if you want to. It’s nothing but speculation on your part that fits with your well-established, pre-existing anti-VY bias. I believe the historical record shows that VY made dumb but irrelevant mistakes, and that VY’s former good legislative friend made an electorally-inspired strategic decision to turn 180 degrees, throw in his lot with VPIRG and Arnie Gunderson and Bob Stannard and “grannies against nukes” and all the other nuts out there, and villify and scapegoat VY (can you say “Entergy Louisiana” — a name Shumlin never used until he was running for Governor in 2009?) and that once Shumlin decided that VY would never, ever, ever be relicensed under his watch, there realistically could be no power deals between VY and the Vermont utilities. Shumlin has made it quite clear that he believes VY should be shut down because it is unsafe. So how can you possibly say that Shumlin would have let an unsafe (in his mind) plant run IF the power pricing was right? Your “highly probable” speculation is internally inconsistent.But never mind. Just keep repeating to yourself that Shumlin’s partisan electoral ambitions had nothing to do with the current situation.

3. It’s obvious that Murphy wants at all costs to blame Peter Shumlin and to exonerate Entergy, come what may. That’s his prerogrative.It is worth noting, however, that Shumlin was not in the legislature when it unanimously passed the bill REQUIRING a legislative vote. Jim Douglas was governor then, and he signed the bill, despite his ardent support for relicensing. The only opposition Entergy presented to the bill was based on its being “redundant” with a bill which Entergy itself had proposed and which had passed the previous year, when Shumlin was also absent. (That bill required a legislative vote to approve further use of dry cask storage, without which, since the fuel pool is full, Entergy needed for further operations).It is also worth noting that the negotiations we’re discussing here are anything but complex. There are really just 2 moving parts: the amount of power and the price. There is therefore no reason for negotiations to be prolonged, certainly not over a period of years.I was not a party to the negotiations, but it’s pretty hard to avoid the obvious inference based on the public record: namely, that Entergy’s offers were higher than the utilities wanted to pay. There is also evidence in the amount offered by Jay Thayer in his letter to the PSB (115 MW vs 280 MW) that Entergy was also trying to force the utilities to contract for a good deal less power than they wanted. Both of them were on record as wanting to buy less than they are buying currently, but not THAT much less. Indeed, GMP stated publicly that it wanted 95 MW, dropping in 5 year increments. Entergy’s offer would have left only 20 MW for CVSP AND VEC, clearly less than they wanted to buy.In short, Tom’s points are quite valid, despite Murphy’s refusal to acknowledge them. So is the point I made above, which Murphy is missing entirely. During the time period in question (2008-2010), market price expectations changed dramatically. Had Entergy offered an approximately 1/3 discount from market price expectations in 2008, it’s pretty hard to believe that Vermont utilities would have turned it down. Yet that price would have been either identical or very close to the price which, 2 years later, they DID turn down (i.e. 6.1 cents for 2012). (For the record, that same price would be well ABOVE market today). Entergy wanted to keep operating the plant; it was in ENTERGY’s interest to make that happen. If Murphy and Entergy want to blame Peter Shumlin, they’re free to do so, but that isn’t going to get them a CPG. While both utilities made it clear both publicly, and privately to me, that they supported VY’s continuing operations, it’s frankly no skin off their backs that we’ve ended up where we now are. They’ve met their needs (ironically, at a lower price than they ever could have hoped for in 2008); Entergy has come up short.What Tom and I are pointing out is simply this: had Entergy behaved differently when it mattered, it is highly probable that we would be having a completely different discussion today. As long as we’ve gotten this far into the weeds, I’ll make one final point. Entergy could have waited until AFTER the legislative vote to propose the Enexus spinoff. With the deal pending during legislative deliberations, I know for certain that it DID change legislative votes. Vince Illuzzi basically said so in a Rutland Herald editorial in the fall of 2009, but there are at least 3 other senators, otherwise supportive of VY, whose “no” vote as at least partially based on their distaste for the Enexus deal. (I know that because they said so). There may well be others. At the same time, it’s hard to see how delaying the spinoff proposal would have made any practical or legal difference in its outcome. In short, Entergy’s timing was another significant strategic blunder (for which I’m sure Murphy will find a reason to blame Peter Shumlin).Senator Brock was absolutely correct, when he said during the 2010 debate that Entergy was its own worst enemy.

4. Have you been privy to the negotiations? How do you know that the Vt. utilities were asking for anything remotely reasonable?Much more fundamental, however, is the question of why this isn’t all before the PSB? If the prices being offered by VY aren’t “in the public good,” then the PSB would deny the relicensure.We all know the answer of why Shumlin wouldn’t let the PSB decide the issue: because he wanted a public Senate vote for his gubernatorial campaign.

5. @Murphy: You are really missing the point. Utilities serving the state of Vermont currently have a long term power purchase agreement that supporters of the plant find attractive. Entergy wishes to continue operating, but does not want to offer a similar PPA into the future. Indeed, Jay Thayer’s written testimony of February 11, 2009 states that a PPA should be at market rates, or should otherwise use the value of the RSA, and he repeated that under questioning at the technical hearings on May 21, 2009 as follows:”CHAIRMAN VOLZ: I just want you to confirm that you’re willing to do a purchase power agreement with Vermont utilities for some amount of power from the plant going into the future, but it needs to be at market rates. MR. THAYER: That’s correct.” That was long before Senator Shumlin became governor. The state is looking for value, and Entergy is refusing to deliver. That’s not because of anything Governor Shumlin has said or done, and in fact, the Douglas administration also opposed continued operation without a substantial benefit from a PPA.Indeed, the Initial Brief filed by the Department of Public Service on July 17, 2009 (under Governor Douglas) argues that without a PPA the plant doesn’t serve the “general good.” Here is the relevant DPS statement from the Initial Brief at the conclusion of the technical hearings:“…Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that an extended period of operations for VY will promote the general good of the state under 30 V.S.A. §248(a)(2) because they have not produced any PPA for consideration by the Board, much less one with favorable rates, terms and conditions for Vermont utilities and their ratepayers…” And finally the conclusion of the Department of Public Service (Initial Brief, Docket 7440, July 17, 2009, page 72):“For the reasons set forth in the above brief, the Board should conclude that Petitioners have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that continued operation of VY would promote the public good and deny Petitioners requested relief. In the event the Board concludes otherwise, it is imperative that the Board adopt all of the recommended conditions described in this brief to ensure that there are no undue impacts to the public interest as a result of extended operations.”Well before Governor Shumlin was elected we had Entergy declining to provide a PPA with meaningful value, and the state (under Governor Douglas) arguing that the plant shouldn’t continue to operate without one. This isn’t a Shumlin problem.

6. A short Google search shows that VT Senate President Pro Tem and aspiring Governor Shumlin was publicly caling for the shutdown of VT Yankee at least as early as 2009 — WHEN NEGOTIATIONS OVER PPAs WERE ONGOING. And I believe a more thorough search of the record will show that his antagonism toward Vt. Yankee started earlier than that.So at a time when the Vt. utilities are trying to negotiate PPAs with Vt. Yankee, you have Vt.’s second-ranking political leader and possible future Governor telling the utilities: don’t negotiate seriously with VY.And you and Buchanan are trying to blame VY for the fact that there are no PPAs. Of course.

7. I DO understand it Murphy. You miss my point entirely. The contradiction that I pointed out is your failure to note that Shumlin’s FIRST position did NOTHING to make negotiations difficult, while by the time he took his SECOND position, negotiations had basically ended. In 2008, Shumlin was NOT opposed to VY, nor were most legislators. THAT’s when Entergy and the utilities were negotiating. There was NO climate of hostility. That was Tom’s point, which you attempted to refute by pointing out that 2 years later, in 2010, Shumlin changed his posture. Just like Shumlin, you’re having it both ways for the convenience of your “argument.”

8. “But, then in his next post, he turns around to acknowledge that the “unscrupulous politician” in question “used to be a big fan of VY, even long AFTER it became owned by the company he now calls “Entergy Louisiana”.”Jeezuz, what is so hard to understand about the fact that a certain politician who has long wanted to be Governor changed his attitude 180 degrees about VY when he realized that a significant portion of the Democratic primary voters (but never the state as a whole) favored shutting it down? Just what is so freakin hard to understand about that, Greenberg? And given that we’re talking about a particular politician who has a notorious reputation for saying X yesterday and Y today (documented in 7D and just about everywhere else), just what exactly is it that you don’t understand about an unscrupulous politician doing a crass about-face? Please, get a reality-clue, will ya?

9. Murphy’s trying to have it both ways. First, he argues that “the current lack of PPAs is due to the fact that they’ve been faced with nothing but hostility, taunting, and antagonism, and been used as a scapegoat by an unscrupulous politician and his cronies and certain media outlets.” But, then in his next post, he turns around to acknowledge that the “unscrupulous politician” in question “used to be a big fan of VY, even long AFTER it became owned by the company he now calls “Entergy Louisiana”.PPA negotiations were largely conducted in 2008-2009. They were supposed to have terminated no later than September 2009 (a PSB-set date for contracts to be presented). Energy costs during that period were projected to be in the 9+ cents range, rising sharply, and estimates were floated of the RSA being worth over $1 billion. There was no climate of hostility back then, and certainly nothing preventing Entergy from offering a favorable price. Indeed, Entergy could have locked in a price THEN which would have looked incredibly cheap (and which NOW would look incredibly dear), assuring themselves of prodigious profits and almost certain legislative approval. The fact is, as Tom pointed out, they declined to do so. The hostility to which Murphy is now trying to appeal, is one of the RESULTS, not the CAUSE of Entergy’s failure to offer favorable prices.

10. I couldn’t disagree more with your view that the current impasse is “Entergy’s game to win or lose.” You can attempt to juggle the numbers all you want about the price of power, but there’s no business case for NOT allowing the plant to continuing to operate — even if for no other reason than to get the taxes, the employment, and the RSAs.The legislative record shows that Shumlin used to be a big fan of VY, even long AFTER it became owned by the company he now calls “Entergy Louisiana” (a name he never used until recently, even though the plant has had the same ownership since 2002). He wanted to run for Governor in 2010 and he put his finger up to the wind and realized that a good portion of the Democratic primary base was opposed to relicensing VY. All of a sudden he became VY’s biggest hater, and launched an all-out assault on the plant and its ownership (exploiting their dumb mistakes). Your insistence that it’s still “VY’s game to win or lose” is naive to the point of being delusional. Shumlin will not and cannot now suddenly change his mind about allowing the plant to continue operating. Even if VY offered their electricity for free to all VT utilities for the next 20 years, the Shumlin Administration has already committed itself to a policy of “shut it down now” that they will not and cannot back away from. Shumlin forced the preemption showdown in federal court, not VY. All he had to do was allow the PSB to do its job, as the 2002 MOU called for. And if the federal courts rule that Vermont’s state senate vote against VY was the disguised “safety” vote that a lot of people know it was, and thereby violated federal pre-emption, the least surprised person in Vermont will be Shumlin.So your suggestion that Entergy’s asserting its legal rights against the political bullies in Montpelier is an “assault they launched in federal court” reflects such a naive or biased viewpoint that it’s not worth responding to. The assault has been by Shumlin and his political hangers-on against VY, for purely electoral political reasons, and not the other way around.

Comments are closed.