The state of Vermont’s Department of Public Service is now receiving monthly updates from Entergy on the performance of Vermont Yankee’s Decommissioning Fund — you know, the amount of money that needs to be set aside to clean up the plant once its closed.
Anyone with a 401(k) knows the stock market has been in a bit of a rut. OK, a ditch. OK, maybe a canyon. Anyway, as I pointed out in “Fair Game” in October the fund’s value has actually been dropping precipitously since the end of 2007.
So, here’s a rundown with the latest, Nov. 30, 2008 figures tacked on.
March 31, 2006: $391,882,501
Sept 30, 2006: $402,410,980
March 31, 2007: $422,182,237
Sept 30, 2007: $440,003, 672
March 31, 2008: $427,406,446
Sept 30, 2008: $397,035,937
Oct 31, 2008: $364,426,383
Nov 30, 2008: $360,673,692
It’s good to remember that when Entergy bought the plant in 2002, the fund’s value was roughly $304 million. All of that money came from ratepayers. In other words, you and I, not investments or corporate profits.
Given that taxayers in Connecticut and Massachusetts were asked to pony up the shortfall when their nuke plants were shut down, it should give anyone pause that the cost of decommissioning Vermont Yankee could run as high as $1.2 billion.
VY officials contend the plant could be mothballed for up to 60 years until enough investment money accrues in the fund to break down the reactor site.
The tanking of the fund only adds to Vermont Yankee’s woes as it tries to convince lawmakers to give it a thumbs up to operate for another 20 years. At least one key lawmaker has said he doesn’t expect there to be a vote taken this session, but rather in 2010.
A group of anti-nuke activists hopes to fill that void by putting Vermont Yankee’s relicensure request up for a public vote on Town Meeting Day 2009. So far, people in about 40 towns have expressed an interest, according to Dan DeWalt, one of the resolution’s backers.
The resolution asks the Legislature to:
- Agree that the power produced by Vermont Yankee’s equals 2% of what is used in the region, and that such a small amount of power can be replaced with renewables and conservation;
- Operating VY beyond 2012, a time in which it will be 40 years old, does not benefit the general welfare of the state; and,
- Entergy should be held liable to pay for the full cost of decommissioning Vermont Yankee.
Meanwhile, Entergy has dumped its long-term lobbying team of Gerry Morris and Allison Crowley DeMag. In Mid-October, Entergy hired on MacLean, Meehan, and Rice as their lobbying firm of choice. Christopher Rice will serve as the nuke company’s chief face under the Golden Dome.
This article appears in Dec 10-16, 2008.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
LAJHHMSE,Take a deep breath. You make at least two decent points about my original comment. Your tone, however, is about as patronizing and disrespectful as it gets. You’re clearly not interested in a substantive debate on the legitimate issues you bring up. That sucks.There was a wonderful debate on Flatlanders Vs. Natives in regards to winter driving at the BFP website last I looked. You should take your inflammatory nonsense over there.Thanks,Ivan JacobsBurlingtonivan56k_AT_yahoo_DOT_com
“The idea behind this point is that our lights won’t go out without Vermont Yankee. The New England Grid (of which we are a member) has available at any time way more than ample replacement power which can be tapped. (and is each time the plant powers down due to an “non-safety related incident”) We can close Vermont Yankee as scheduled in 2012, get a short-term contract to replace the 220ish MW while we get clean, homegrown energy and more efficiency online here in VT.”The above comment shows that you don’t know the difference between the theoretical, and the real.I can’t even put up a wind turbine on my own property without my neighbor suing me because he doesn’t like the way it looks. We aren’t going to replace 300 megawatts of electricity from VY with 300,000 individual wind turbines, my enormously naive friend. At least not in my lifetime or yours. Unless the Vt. Legislature decides to abolish the Public Service Board and nuisance lawsuits.Yes, Vermont can “theoretically” survive without VY by buying 300+ megawatts of power on the “spot market” while 300,000 wind-turbine nuisance lawsuits wind their way through the court system (which, by the way, is closed due to budget cuts). That will be both enormously expensive, and unreliable.And exactly where does that spot market power that’s available on “the grid” come from? Oh, filthy coal-fired power plants in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia, Kentucky, etc., that are spewing tons of sulfur dioxide and carbon into the atmosphere, that’s where. And, ironically, where does that sulfur dioxide land? Oh, in Vermont! Thanks for your help with my encironment, sir.And exactly how much will it cost? My share of VY power currently costs 4 cents per kilowatt hour. I’d prefer not to pay $1.00 per kilowatt hour for my replacement power from “the grid.” Thanks so much for concerning yourself with my economic well-being, sir.Anything is theoretically possible. No one but you, however, believes we can shut Yankee down now and suffer no serious consequences. I would strongly prefer not to start drawing down on my kids’ college fund and my own retirement fund to pay for your energy fantasies.Let’s just all hold hands and sing “kumbaya” and our collective spiritual energy will get us through.
Dan L Said:
Great Point! The dangerous and outdated design of Vermont Yankee (GE Mark 1 BWR) is also banned by the western world.
One of the sketchiest things about the 37 year old reactor is that the radioactivity containment system in the event of an accident is NOTHING compared to that of a modern plant.
Further, the fuel pool at VY is located outside the containment area, contains over 41 million curies of waste (Chernobyl released 2 million curries), and would be a very easy target for terrorists… indeed, the National Governors Association describes these reactors as “pre-deployed weapons of mass destruction.”
Haik Said:
The idea behind this point is that our lights won’t go out without Vermont Yankee. The New England Grid (of which we are a member) has available at any time way more than ample replacement power which can be tapped. (and is each time the plant powers down due to an “non-safety related incident”)
We can close Vermont Yankee as scheduled in 2012, get a short-term contract to replace the 220ish MW while we get clean, homegrown energy and more efficiency online here in VT.
That’s the point, we want dencentralized, community owned and generated renewable energy. Local to Vermont, controlled by Vermont!Germany in 4 yrs installed 3300MW of solar PV! Off the shelf, available today technology. and Vermont gets 20% more sun than Germany. Even the DPS reports 25-35% energy efficiency savings are possible which would nearly replace all the power VT gets from VY. And that would be far cheaper than the new power contract ENVY’s not negotiating quickly with CVPS and GMP. Where Entergy has stated to its shareholders that they are going to maximize profits from VY.
Zero deaths due to nuclear power? Karen Silkwood:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_SilkwoodThat's at least one…but yeah, coal claims thousands of lives every year, I do still see your point. Nuclear is a great method for centralized, rich-people controlled energy. However, decentralized and renewable energy is way more effective and efficient. The real question is, do we keep subsidizing corporations, or invest in our own communities?
“To your point about “region”. In this context, the resolution considers all of New England as the region, not just Vermont.”If the issue is re-licensure in Vermont, then Haik is right: that is a meaningless statistic. What does and should matter to Vermonters is the amount of electricity *Vermonters* get from VY, not what part of the “regional” supply VY provides.Since the power grid covers an area much larger than New England, you could just as easily say, “VY only accounts for .000000000000000000001 % of the nationwide power supply,” or some such. Again, a statistic that has no meaning to the issue of concern to Vermonters: whether to relicense VY.
…the resolution considers all of New England as the region, not just Vermont.Exactly. Except not all of New England will be voting on this. Do they expect us to believe that a few people turning the lights off in Boston are going to eliminate the need for electricity in VT that VY currently satisfies? That’s silly. They might as well argue that VY produces a totally negligible percentage of the world’s total electricity, so it really isn’t necessary at all.
Haik: Thanks for the correction. Nothing like late-night typing and self-editing. Sigh.To your point about “region”. In this context, the resolution considers all of New England as the region, not just Vermont.
In other words, you and I, not investments or corporate profits.You mean you and me, not you and I. You wouldn’t say “the money came from I.” Dickish corrections aside, the resolution’s claim that VY only accounts for “2% of what is used in the region” seems dubious. I don’t know what “the region” means, but according to the Vermont Department of Public Service’s website, VY met 35% of Vermont’s total electricity demand in 2003.I’m not in favor of nuclear power. I’m just wary of statistics. -Steve
Before anyone gets hot headed about this whole situation lets not forget that nuclear power has the safest track record of any major source of electrical power in the USA. In the states there have been zero deaths due to nuclear power, compare that to the 50 annual deaths to coal mining not to mention black lung or the countless military deaths to obtain oil. The only nuclear accidents in the states were human error. These could have been avoided if the proper safety systems were not turned off (Three Mile Island). To all you activists who are going to bring up Chernobyl, that is a perfect example. . . . of why that specific type of reactor is banned by the western world. Safety should be a concern and that is why Yankee Electric should be checked randomly and often. ~DAn