It's Hard to Even Comment: The Vermont Energy Plan

Comments due tomorrow

In yesterday's post I wrote that the Vermont Energy Plan is Basically Unworkable.  It's not only unworkable, it is almost impossible to comment on it.

Public comments on this update to Vermont's Comprehensive Energy Plan are due to the Vermont Public Service Department (PSD) by tomorrow.  In my blog post, I encourage people to comment.  I shouldn't ask people to do what I haven't done myself.  I had no idea what I was getting into, when I decided to comment.

Commenting is difficult

For this round of comments, the schedule is very compressed. (There will be another comment period in the fall.)  The PSD set invitational meetings in late June, has public meetings in July, and insists that all comments are submitted by late July. This is despite the fact there are  hundreds of pages of reading material on these subjects.

There are two ways that PSD wants you to send comments, as listed in the page Update to the Comprehensive Energy Plan. To quote the PSD page:

"Written comments are welcome at (https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/vtcepOC) by July 24, 2015.
You may also provide comment in response to specific questions raised by the Department at (https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/vtcepFQ) by July 24, 2015."

Opening the Forms

So I followed those links.

The link ending OC is the Open Comment survey form.  The link ending FQ is Framing Questions survey form. These forms are different, though related.  Each form is nine pages long.  Both forms have  from one to several questions per page. Though, in fairness, the first two pages have no questions, just directions and a place to put your name and so forth. After the initial pages, here's how the forms are:

OC. The pages of the OC form aren't really questions: They are  topic areas in which you can comment.
For example, under Transportation in the OC form, you can comment on
Freight Heavy Duty Vehicles
Zero Emission Vehicle Action Plan

Or (under Energy Financing in the OC form)
Energy Financing

FQ:  The FQ form asks more directed questions.  For example, the first real question (not about filling out your name) asks:
What areas of the 2011 CEP need updates? It includes links to all the volumes of the 2011 CEP.

The next question links to a dozen recent PSD reports. It asks how these reports and processes should be incorporated into the new CEP.

Later questions include this one:
9. How should the 2015 CEP update address the use of natural gas? How should the plan differentiate between policies regarding the use of this fossil fuel and policies regarding construction of pipeline infrastructure that can carry both fossil natural gas and other gaseous fuels such as renewable natural gas?

A New Job?

Clearly, commenting on these forms could be a full time job.  I don't have full time for this, and I suspect my readers don't have full time for it either. So, I am back to square one.  I shouldn't ask people to do what I haven't done.  What am I going to do?

OC  
On page 8 there's a space to make a positive comment about nuclear energy, which I did.  On page 9, I was a bit crabby. I said the Comprehensive Plan is a slogan, not a plan.  I also suggested the PSD stop wasting taxpayer money on writing expensive reports.

FQ
In the FQ document, the first question is about "what parts of the 2011 CEP plan need to be updated."  I suggested that, since we are making very little energy instate, we should plan to buy more energy from Seabrook and Millstone.

Opportunity Right Now to Comment on Decommissioning Plan

Time is Short!

In its agreement with the state of Vermont, Entergy promised to prepare several documents outlining decommissioning plans and costs.  Of course, it prepared the documents in a very timely fashion.

The best opportunity to comment on these documents is between now and Tuesday of next week. What's the hurry?  Well, the Bennington Banner explains it:

"Public comments on the draft PSDAR received by Nov. 25 will be considered for inclusion with the Public Service Department’s comments that will be provided to Entergy for incorporation with its PSDAR submittal to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission."

The Documents

You can find the links to the documents on the Entergy VYDecommissioning Document Library Page.  The two documents that are most relevant are the Site Assessment Study, and Appendix C: Draft Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report .   Oh right....  I need to tell you that Appendix C is the PSDAR referred to above (Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report). The Site Assessment Study is the SAS, of course.

I hope you will comment.

Comment on what?

Well, yes. What to say? We are talking about two rather dry documents, each about 50 pages each. Reading the documents would be best used as a way to fall asleep without a lullaby or a glass of brandy (depending on your age).  Luckily, however, your comment does not have to be as long as the document.  I have three suggestions for commenting on the PSDAR:

1) The fuel pool:
Not actually in the PSDAR, but the opponents will insist that storing the used fuel rods in the spent fuel pool is very dangerous and the plant must keep all warning and safety and emergency response measures in place. They will claim that all emergency systems must be fully staffed and tested for the entire emergency planning zone, and they must be in place until all fuel rods are removed from the fuel pool after five years.  However, Entergy has calculated the residual heat in the fuel pool and the various accident scenarios, and Entergy plans to shrink the 10-mile planning zone to the plant fence line after about a year. After about a year, the fuel is cool enough for this change.

Opponents oppose this, of course, and Vermont Senator Sanders is particularly incensed at the idea of shrinking the emergency zone.  He seems to think that fuel pools are infinitely dangerous. Meanwhile, at  Fukushima, with fresh fuel in fuel pool 4 and the roof falling in, just about the worst-case-scenario you can imagine....nothing happened.  No melting, no fires, and all the used fuel rods have been removed successfully.

Bottom line: You might want to write a note saying the fuel pool at Fukushima 4 was okay, and the fuel pool at Vermont Yankee will be fine, too.

2) GEIS:
The PSDAR refers many times to the General Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) issued by NRC about decommissioning. The PSDAR explains how the Vermont Yankee decomm process is governed by that document.  The opponents will undoubtedly attack the GEIS and also attack the idea that Vermont Yankee's situation is covered by the GEIS.  Meanwhile, the PSDAR has elaborate and (sleep-inducing) descriptions of the various parts of the GEIS.

Bottom line: You might want to write a note saying how you found the GEIS to be more comprehensive than you expected (too much information!) and it will be a good guide to the decommissioning process.

3) Timing:

Oh baby. This is a big one.  On page 21 of the PSDAR  there's a time-line for decommissioning.  As Entergy promised, the first part of the decomm (removal of fuel from the fuel pool and into dry casks) goes as fast as possible.  This phase ends in 2021.  But then, the plant is in SAFSTOR as the radiation gets less and the trust fund grows.

In the table on page 21, Decomm is shown as complete in 2073. Site restoration is complete in 2075. It is 59 years (just shy of the 60 allowed by the NRC) between plant shutdown and license termination.  Governor Shumlin initially believed that SAFSTOR was not even allowed in Vermont. You can see chilling footage of Shumlin's statements in my blog post: In Vermont, Our Word is Our Bond, So We Don't Honor Contracts.

Despite Shumlin's odd ideas, SAFSTOR is allowed in Entergy's agreement with Vermont, and it is allowed by the NRC, and Entergy can choose it.

Bottom line: You might want to write something saying acknowledging that SAFSTOR is not the choice that many people in Vermont would have liked, but it is legal and allowed by contract. It is also  safer for the workers and the community allow radiation time to diminish before dis-assembling a plant.

Submitting your remarks:

IMHO, the State of Vermont is not making it easy to make comments. However, you can submit them.  To quote the Bennington Banner again:

Written comments may be mailed electronically to the State Nuclear Engineer at : anthony.leshinskie@state.vt.us. Please include “PSDAR/SAS Comments” in the email subject line. Written comments may also be mailed to the Public Service Department at Vermont Public Service Department, ATTN: PSDAR/SAS Comments, 112 State Street — Drawer 20, Montpelier, VT 05620-2601.

To facilitate the ease of compiling all comments received, please consider emailing comments as an attached MSWord or PDF document. When sending comments via US Mail, please consider using a Compact Disk and either MSWord or PDF format.


Why?

It's all part of the Entergy agreement with the state.  Entergy agreed to consider feedback from state agencies before submitting its documents to the NRC.  The Department of Public Service decided to take comments from the public.  And here we are, commenting...

To quote Chris Campany of the Windham Regional Commission (as quoted by Olga Peters in The Commons)

According to Campany, he asked the DPS to actively seek public comment.
“This is all voluntary on Entergy’s part,” he said of Entergy sending its draft reports to the state agencies for feedback.....
Ultimately, what appears in the PSDAR is “Entergy’s prerogative,” said Campany. “This is not a PSB process.”

The Agreement between Vermont Yankee and Some State Agencies

The Agreement

The Department of Public Service (PSD), the Agency of Natural Resources, and the Vermont Department of Health signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Entergy on December 23.

The link is below (13 page pdf).

http://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/psd/files/Announcements/VY_Settlement/VY_Settlement_Agreement_131223.pdf

The Missing Link

Christopher Recchia
Commissioner
Dept of Public Service

Understanding this agreement and commenting upon it will take some time. Right now, however, I want to point out that one important agency has not signed off on this yet--the Public Service Board.  For this agreement to take effect, the Public Service Board must grant Vermont Yankee a Certificate of Public Good (CPG) in accordance with the provisions of this agreement.

 The agreement gives the Public Service Board a deadline of March 31, 2014 for granting this certificate.

Section 2 of the agreement below:


Entergy VY and PSD shall jointly recommend to and shall support before the Board the issuance of CPG(s) effective as of March2l,2012, for: (1) operation of the VY Station through December 31,2014, and (2) storage of SNF derived from such operation, as requested by the second amended petition filed by Entergy VY in Board Docket No. 7862 on August 27,2013. Entergy VY and PSD will submit a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") to the Board, in the form attached as Exhibit A, in connection with those filings.

In the event that by March 31 ,2014, the Board has not granted Entergy VY a CPG that: (i) approves operation of the VY Station until December 31, 2014, and the storage of SNF derived from such operation; and (ii) approves the Parties' jointly filed MOU substantially in its entirety and contains conditions that do not materially alter, add to, or reject what is provided for by the MOU, each Party agrees that this Agreement may terminate, if such Party so determines in its sole discretion and provides written notice within ten (10) days of Board issuance of its order, whereupon each Party shall be placed in the position thatit occupied before entering into this Agreement, except that the obligations of paragraph 3(a) through (c) and the actions taken thereunder are final and shall not be affected by any termination.


Sections 3 a, b and c....this is an agreement that both sides (state and Entergy) promise not to appeal the court of appeals ruling in the major federal lawsuit. I blogged about this issue in The Second Lingering Lawsuit: The Attorney Fees.  I said that the state was unlikely to bring an appeal, since they had lost on the pre-emption issue in two courts.

Not Over Till It's Over

The day after the agreement was signed, I was interviewed by Pat Bradley of WAMC: Vermont and Entergy Reach Agreement on Future of Vermont Yankee Operations.

Here's my quote from that interview.

Public Service Board members Coen, Volz and Burke
See note below

Ethan Allen Institute Energy Education Project Director Meredith Angwin has worked in the power industry and pens the blog Yes Vermont Yankee. She notes that the Public Service Board, which has a case involving the plant, was not involved and expects some controversy to continue.   “What they really kind-of announced is that the Department of Public Service would advocate for this agreement before the Public Service Board. And the Department of Public Service carries a lot of weight. The Public Service Board still has to rule, but the intervenors will have plenty of time in front of the Public Service Board to say ‘no, no that’s a terrible idea, that’s a terrible idea.”

In other words, it's not over till it's over.

Note:  Coen has left the Public Service Board and been replaced by Margaret Cheney. Here's the new page with the new picture.    However, at the time of the Cheney appointment, I got the impression that Coen would continue to serve on any open dockets and Cheney would take over new dockets.  It is not clear to me which group of board members will be seated on the bench for this docket.  I will let you know when I find out.

Vermont Yankee Wins in Appeals Court

We have great news about Vermont Yankee: the appeals court ruled in their favor!

The fight has shifted to the Vermont Public Service Board. Your input to the Vermont Public Service Board is still needed and valuable.

The Appeals Court Ruling

On Wednesday, the federal appeals court in New York ruled in favor of Vermont Yankee.  They basically upheld Judge Murtha's decision that the Vermont legislature had attempted to shut down Vermont Yankee on illegal grounds.  The legislature was trying to regulate on the basis of nuclear safety, which is regulated by the NRC.

You can read a good summary of the case by Dave Gram of AP. To quote the first sentence of his article: "Vermont's attempts to close its lone nuclear power plant were deceptive and misleading, a federal appeals court ruled..." Andrew Stein at Vermont Digger also has a good article.  In addition, here's a link to the actual appeals court ruling.

My summary of the state's case against Vermont Yankee was written shortly after the appeals court hearing in January.  The state claimed that they wanted to shut down Vermont Yankee due to economics, not safety.

Economics? Really?  In appeals court, Vermont claimed it had a reason to shut down a plant for too low a price, and for sharing revenue with the Vermont utilities.  In other words, the legislature claimed to want to shut the plant down because it is an economic asset.

The appeals court judges noted the legislature's real reasons for trying to shut it down. They were trying to regulate nuclear safety.

Yes, they were regulating safety

The appeals court ruling includes a long history of court cases about Vermont Yankee. Here's an example.

Go to page 10 of the appeals court document to see a quote from a Vermont law passed in 2005 (Act 74). In this law, the state legislature requires Entergy to "configure the spent fuel pool so that high-decay heat assemblies are surrounded by low-decay heat assemblies."  (Sarcasm alert)  Gee, Entergy would NEVER have thought of doing that, without this legislation!  (End sarcasm alert.)

On to the Public Service Board

Governor Shumlin is not happy with the ruling, and he issued a press release including the following statement: While I disagree with the result the Second Circuit reached..., the process does not end today. Importantly, the Vermont Public Service Board's role in reviewing Entergy's request for a state Certificate of Public Good ...will continue.

In other words, the Public Service Board must still issue a Certificate of Public Good in order for Vermont Yankee to keep operating.  Shumlin clearly hopes they will not issue the certificate.

Cheryl Hanna

Pat Bradley of WAMC interviewed several people about this ruling, including me.  (I encourage you to listen to this four-minute segment.)

• I wondered whether the board will look at the economics of Vermont Yankee, or whether it will listen to the anti-Vermont Yankee charge being led by the Shumlin appointees at the state Department of Public Service. 
• Cheryl Hanna of Vermont Law School said the appeal court decision was no surprise. (Hanna had written an article predicting this outcome, right after the hearings in January.) She also said that whoever wins at the Public Service Board, the other side will almost undoubtedly appeal the decision to the Vermont courts.

 Still Time to Comment

I believe you can still comment to the Public Service Board, through the end of the month.  Here's a link to the docket:
http://psb.vermont.gov/docketsandprojects/public-comment?docket=7862

And here's a link to a recent post with some background material for comments.

Long, thoughtful comments are always very welcome, but one or two sentences in support of the plant are very helpful.  You can write a great letter, or you can write a short postcard.  Share your own reasons for supporting Vermont Yankee: the plant's community support, economic impact, and positive effects on the environment (compared to fossil fuels).

Law and Facts won this round!  Onwards!

Hydro Power in Vermont: The Expert's View

A few days ago, I posted about some controversial renewable energy projects in Vermont.   I didn't mention hydro projects.  Basically, I don't think in-state hydro is going to expand very much in Vermont.  Still, hydroelectric power is pretty important in New England, so I need to discuss it.

Here's my Vermont-centric description of the Future Of Hydro.

In-State Hydro Right Now

 Historically, Vermont receives about 10-12% of its power from in-state hydro. I show two charts that show this percentage.  One is about two years old, showing 11% in-state hydro in Vermont.

Vermont Electric Supply
From 2010 PSB Sustainability Presentation 

One is more recent, showing 12% in-state hydro for Green Mountain Power, which supplies over 70% of the electricity in this state.

From current Green Mountain Power web page on Fuel Mix.

Green Mountain Power (GMP) website's hydro page describes Vermont's long history of hydro power. GMP itself has a fleet of 32 hydro stations, many of which include recreation areas. There are about 80 active hydro sites in Vermont.

Views on New Hydro in Vermont's Future

I don't expect in-state hydro to expand very much in the future.

VPIRG and the Coalition for Energy Solutions: In 2009, VPIRG issued a report on Repowering Vermont, and the Coalition for Energy Solutions reviewed this in their own report Vermont Electric Power in Transition in early 2010. On hydro, the two reports pretty much agree.  The VPIRG report expects only 15 MW growth of in-state hydro. The Coalition report is not sure that even that amount of hydro expansion is feasible: When thinking about building many small dams, the effects on tourism should be considered. In general, small free-flowing streams are part of the Vermont landscape, and a great tourist draw...(Full disclosure: I am one of the authors of the Coalition report.)

Renewable Energy Vermont (REV) is upbeat about hydro, but they admit that By and large all existing dam sites in Vermont have already been developed, with no new projects commissioned since 1993. Environmental concerns, a burdensome licensing process and difficult economics have been primarily responsible for the lack of new dams coming on line.  Despite this, REV is hopeful about small, community-scale, run-of-the-river hydro.

Hydropower Illustration
From REV

In August 2010, the Burlington Free Press ran an article Hydroelectric dams resurgent in Vermont. It isn't much of a resurgence, though. This article is really about refurbishing: the two dams described as coming on-line soon are on the sites of existing dams, and together the dams would generate only 3 MW of power.

The same article says that  A 2008 report assembled by the Agency of Natural Resources published estimates in the 50 MW range, which it termed “broad-brush assessments.” (The report) also noted that Vermont’s stewardship of its water resources probably would supercede the licensing of any new hydro dams.

A Department of Public Service (DPS)  presentation in 2008 includes several projections of how much new hydro is available in Vermont.  The numbers range from 25 MW to 322 MW. The DPS projection says that 25 MW can be built.  The high projection is from the Department of Energy: this estimate stands alone with so big a number, and seems to be based on the idea that every river, stream and brook in Vermont would have a hydro plant.

In Conclusion: Very Little New Hydro For Vermont

 I think that existing dams in Vermont will be refurbished and upgraded, with some increase in power supply.  Estimates of 15 to 25 MW seem reasonable to me.  As a whole, I think the state of Vermont will follow the guidance of the Agency of Natural Resources report:

Vermont’s stewardship of its water resources probably would supercede the licensing of any new hydro dams.

------------

Hydro Outside of Vermont

As far as I can tell, while existing dam sites are being refurbished, the national trend is not in favor of more hydro projects. In the United States, hydro seems as likely to be dismantled as to be built. A year ago, for example, the Hydro Review website ran an article by Elizabeth Ingram: Exploring the Reasons behind Dam Removal.  The dams that were removed were located in the western United States.  Nearer to home,  the Edwards Dam was removed in Maine, in 1999, on the basis that it interfered with fish migration.

Low-head hydro that does not require a dam is much discussed. However,  I find few examples of such systems being built, perhaps because the economics are unfavorable.  Refurbishing an existing dam site is the most common way of adding hydro capacity at this time. If I am wrong about this, I hope my readers will correct me.

Hongping Hydro Station, China

Small hydro is being greatly expanded in China.

Further Reading:

To read about the biggest Vermont in-state hydro sites, I recommend Bob Hargraves post on the Energy Safari visit to Comerford Dam.

The five hydro plants on the Connecticut River are due for relicensing, and hearings will begin soon.  However, these plants are not counted as in-state hydro for Vermont. The Connecticut River is the border between Vermont and New Hampshire, but the state of Vermont begins at our shoreline, not in the middle of the river.  So New Hampshire has the hydro plants as well as responsibility for the bridges.

Video Day: Climate Change Presentation and more

On February 14, I attended  a Vermont Public Service Board hearing about Vermont Yankee. Meanwhile, Rob Roper, president of the Ethan Allen Institute, attended a Vermont legislative briefing about climate change. We were both in Montpelier, both at energy-planning events. (I am director of the Energy Education Project, which is part of the Ethan Allen Institute.)

• At Roper's event, the presentations made it clear that the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan will not help climate change, or at least, not very much.  (Also, recently, Guy Page wrote about the difficulties of implementing the Plan. Transitioning to Renewable Power: What It Might Look Like. )
• At my event, the same Plan was used it to "prove" that Vermont Yankee is not necessary for the future of Vermont.

There were several other differences between our two events.

1. The Joint Committee presentation was supported by Vermont tax-payers.
2. Entergy pays the costs for PSB hearings about the Vermont Yankee Certificate of Public Good.  
3. Vermont plans to do everything possible, with Efficiency and Renewable Energy, to help climate change.  It admits this is basically impossible (see video).  (Joint Committee meeting)
4. Vermont Yankee's low-carbon energy production could help mitigate climate change, but Vermont wants to shut down the plant. (PSB meeting).
5. Roper shot a great 3-minute video at the Joint Committee meeting he attended. I encourage you to watch it.
6.  I didn't shoot a video at the Public Service Board hearing.  However, I hope to blog about it in a few days.
7. The PSB meeting had no PowerPoints but lots of lawyers. 

Transitioning to Renewable Power: What It Might Look Like

Transitioning to Renewable Power: An Expert Describes What it Might “Look Like”
 By Guy Page

How many in-state, renewable power plants would it take to generate five percent of all energy used in the state?

This isn’t just an academic question for energy policy wonks. The State of Vermont has hitched its wagon to the star of 90 percent renewable power by 2050, and is pulling mighty hard to build more wind turbines, solar farms, and other renewable power generators.   And some Vermonters are pushing back just as hard.

There’s no lack of spirited debate, but sometimes it’s hard to find good, solid facts. On  February 7, the State of Vermont’s Director of Energy Policy and Planning, Dr. Asa Hopkins, performed and important and very informative public service as he addressed the Vermont Energy Generation Siting Policy Commission at a public hearing in Montpelier. Using “just the facts, ma’am” tone and detail, Dr. Hopkins described what a five percent  increase in Vermont-generated renewable electric power would look like.

The Five Per Cent Non-Solution

Hopkins emphasized that there’s nothing magic about five percent. It’s just one intermediate step from the 23 percent renewable energy level of 2010 to the 90 percent goal of 2050. He also clarified that electricity is a third of Vermont’s total energy sector. Heating and transportation, both more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, account for the other two-thirds.  The state energy analyst described several possible paths to increasing total energy by five percent solely through instate renewable power generation:

• Using large wind only, the state would need to generate 288 megawatts (MW), equal to 96 three- megawatt turbines. That is 4.6 times the capacity of the Kingdom Community Wind project. 
• Using solar only, the state would need to generate 576 MW (5.4 square miles – half the size of Burlington or 1.3 times the size of Barre City), equal to  262 2.2 MW solar generators – the maximum size allowed under the state’s “standard offer” subsidized power program.  Hopkins himself liked it to placing slightly more than one 2.2 MW solar plant in every town, city, and gore in Vermont. 
• Using small hydro only, the state would need to generate 173 MW, almost twice the estimated capacity available from powering 300 of the 1200 existing dams. Hopkins noted that the federal permitting process for small hydro can be lengthy and complex. 
• Using biomass (woodchips) only, the state would need to generate 139 MW, which would require an additional 1.1 million tons of fuel per year. At present, Vermont now uses 1.5 million tons/year total.

How Much Do We Need?

Dr. Hopkins noted that the expected reduced demand through conservation will cancel out the projected annual growth in demand for electricity. There is a notable exception: when demand for electricity rises by one-third due to the transition to plug-in electric vehicles. Energy conservation can’t keep up with a power demand spike of that size. At that point, Vermont ‘s power supply would need a real boost.

Vermonters know, more than we knew several years ago, the challenges that wind and solar projects present. We are developing opinions of a future of renewable power, based on our actual experience. Dr. Hopkins’ scenarios may help some of us inform those opinions. Knowing what we know, do we want five more Lowell Mountain wind projects, or solar farms everywhere, or hundreds more small dams, or heavier harvesting of woodlands in and around Vermont? Or an energy buffet of smaller servings of “all of the above?” For others, the answer might be “none of the above.”

Two years ago there was just a single ridgeline wind facility, now there are four. Solar power production on rooftop homes, on large buildings, and in pastures are on the rise.  Plug-in car registrations grew 57% in 2012, but only to 188 in total.

Can we build (and afford) enough renewable power? If we can, do we want to? These are questions that Vermonters will continue to debate. But with the help of Dr. Hopkins’ illustrations, at least we can better understand what the finished work might look like.

-----------

Guy Page is Communications Director of the Vermont Energy Partnership. He has several excellent guest posts on this blog.  His most recent post was Energy Policy is Key to Vermont's Future.

Vermont Energy Partnership is a diverse group of more than 90 business, labor, and community leaders committed to finding clean, affordable and reliable electricity solutions.  Entergy, owner of Vermont Yankee, is a member of the Vermont Energy Partnership.

Asa S. Hopkins is the Director of Energy Planning for the Vermont Department of Public Service.  He holds a Ph.D. in physics from California Institute of Technology. He previously held positions at the Department of Energy and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.

Vacation, Carnival and More

I will be on vacation this week.  I hope to have a guest post going up later in the week, but mostly I won't be blogging, or even available.

In the meantime, I encourage people to visit the 115th Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers at Atomic Power Review. It is a fascinating group of blogs, including updates on Fukushima, an interview with the author of SuperFuel, and musings on nuclear regulation.  You  can always find a link to the latest Carnival in the right-hand column of this blog (woman in a carnival mask).

In Vermont-specific news, I recommend this analysis of Vermont's Electricity Outlook, by Guy Page of the Vermont Energy Partnership.  Well-analyzed, but a bit depressing, unless  you happen to live in Quebec.