Nuclear Blogger Carnival #313: Here at Yes Vermont Yankee

Once again, we are proud to host the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers, right here at Yes Vermont Yankee. The Carnival is a compendium of nuclear blogs that rotates from blog site to blog site, and it is always a pleasure and an honor to host it.

Economics

Too Cheap to Meter

At Nuke Power Talk, Gail Marcus discusses “Too Cheap to Meter” and the continued speculation about what Lewis Strauss might have meant when he uttered those words 62 years ago. Her post links to the speech itself.  (These words were part of a set of hopes for an abundant future; they were not a price prediction.)   

It is broken markets, not uneconomic plants that are putting nuclear plants at risk

At the MZConsulting blog  Milt Caplan discusses the need for long-term investment  which is not met by today's "deregulated" markets.  In these markets, natural gas is the price maker, and all other plants are price takers. However, some types of not-natural-gas plants plants are subsidized.  This market system is broken, and the effects on existing and new infrastructure may be severe.

How Can Nuclear Power Survive after Electricity Market Deregulation?

It might seem that this article follows directly from the previous article about prices in the United States.  Instead, this one is about Japan: A report based on a dialogue between Edward Kee and Prof. Takeo Kikkawa during the April 2016 Japan Atomic Industrial Forum (JAIF) Annual Conference in Tokyo. The JAIF event covered topics related to the way nuclear power will fit into the Japanese electricity industry as deregulation and electricity markets are implemented. 

Obama, Modi Kick Start the Westinghouse Nuclear Deal 

At Neutron Bytes, Dan Yurman notes that the deal won’t go very far unless some major challenges are overcome.

Clean Energy

TVA Way Ahead Of The Pack With Nuclear and Solar

At Forbes, James Conca reports on news from the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).  This year, TVA took significant actions that will move the country forward on what many think is the best energy mix for the future – nuclear and solar. This month alone, TVA started their latest solar power program, submitted the first-ever permit application to the NRC for a small modular nuclear reactor (SMR), and their Watts Bar 2 Nuclear Generating Station became the first new nuclear power plant in the U.S. in this century to reach criticality.

A Positive Message: Pro-Nuclear Videos from World Nuclear Association

At Yes Vermont Yankee,  I share two videos from the World Nuclear Association. These short, accurate videos share a positive message on the role of nuclear energy. The first one is Nuclear Energy Leaves More Space for Nature, and the second is Nuclear Energy Helps Solve the Climate Puzzle.  Enjoy and share these one-minute videos.

At American Nuclear Society Blog: Second Part of Analysis on Vermont Yankee Closing

It's the politics?

In yesterday's post at the American Nuclear Cafe blog, Les Corrice and I analyzed Vermont Yankee's closing. We both concluded that  the statement that "it was uneconomic to operate the plant" was kind of a smokescreen. The "economics statement" was a way to avoid admitting the real issue: the plant closed mostly due to political opposition. That was the first post in the series at ANS Nuclear Cafe: you might call it "the politics post."

I also encourage you to read the first comment on the post, clearly written by someone who worked at the plant.  The comment includes more detail on exactly the type of political pressures the plant was facing.  Once you have read the comment, join the conversation.

It's the economics, maybe? Or the lack of advocacy?

Today, ANS posted  the second part of that three-part series on Vermont Yankee's closing.

In this post, three bloggers comment on the closing. Two of the bloggers describe the economics of the plant, and the third describes what real advocacy could mean.

1. Rod Adams worked hard to convince buyers that the plant was worth saving, and he presents cogent economic arguments for keeping the plant running. Adams blogs at Atomic Insights, and most bloggers who read this blog have seen his posts and guest posts.   One of his recent posts is Prevention is Easier and Less Painful than Cure--Keep Vermont Yankee Open.  In today's post at ANS Nuclear Cafe, he gives a concise analysis of how Vermont Yankee could be an economic asset.
2. Edward Kee is an energy economist, and the owner of the Nuclear Economics Consulting Group.  He blogs at Nuclear Economics where he recently posted Nuclear Lessons from Vermont Yankee Closure.  Today, at the American Nuclear Cafe blog, Kee writes that the lack of profitable power contracts was a major cause of Vermont Yankee's closing. He also notes that the grid markets do not financially favor nuclear plants, despite their reliability. 
3. The third blogger, Robert Margolis, feels that the major problem was lack of advocacy.  We needed advocacy for Vermont Yankee, and while we had some, we didn't have enough.  As an example of "enough," Margolis cites Frederick Salvucci, a civil engineer who had personal reasons to advocate for the Big Dig in Boston...and he fought for it, and he won.  The Big Dig was built, however unlikely that might seem in retrospect.  Nuclear advocates are fighting for something better than the Big Dig, but we need some of Salvucci's fire.

I encourage you to read this second Vermont Yankee post at the American Nuclear Society blog, and comment on it.

1-93 Tunnel, part of the Big Dig

Vermont Yankee and Vermont's Future: Milton Eaton Guest Post

Congratulations to the Vermont Department of Public Service for hiring Dennis Leshinskie, an experienced, nonpolitical nuclear engineer, to lead the state’s role in the decommissioning of Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. Vermont’s economic and environmental future should benefit from the addition of this trained professional.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has sole authority in matters of nuclear safety. Vermont should play at least an advisory role in the plant’s decommissioning. It’s reassuring to know that the administration has selected one key decision-maker who has experience-based, nonpolarized understanding of the radiological safety issues of spent fuel storage and plant dismantling. Some Vermonters might assume that when Vermont Yankee stops making power this December, the plant will become irrelevant to our future. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Any breakdown in the orderly decommissioning of Vermont Yankee risks a breach in the master settlement agreement of 2013, with serious consequences for Vermont’s environmental and economic future. Vermont Yankee has already paid its first $5 million commitment to the Vermont Clean Energy Development Fund, the state core of clean energy capital. The agreement also commits Vermont Yankee to contribute an additional $10 million for investment in clean energy and Windham County redevelopment.

The state should not put these vital funds at risk. For example, if Vermont Yankee fails to receive a certificate of public good for a second spent fuel storage pad, the settlement agreement could be declared invalid. This could also prompt an acrimonious legal battle and deprive southern Vermont of the economic and environmental benefits provided to it under the agreement. Spent fuel would remain in the fuel pool, which all parties agree is less desirable than dry cask storage. Investor interest in Windham County could be further tainted.

I wish Mr. Leshinskie every success in his role as a skilled, trustworthy observer and mediator of the real technical opportunities and challenges of the decommissioning of Vermont Yankee.

------

Milton Eaton holds an MBA from the University of Michigan, and has claimed Vermont as his permanent residence since 1969.  Eaton  had a distinguished career at the intersection of energy policy and economic activity. He has held positions in the Department of Commerce, and was the Vermont Secretary for Development and Community Affairs from 1983-1985.  From 1989 to 1999, Eaton served as the East Asia Representative for the Department of Energy and Energy Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo.   He is now retired, and currently serves on the Brattleboro Energy Committee, as well as other local volunteer positions.

This letter has also appeared in several newspapers in Vermont.

Where Vermont Power Will Come From After Vermont Yankee

Rainfall in U S during ice storm
Does not include rainfall Jan 4 and 5

On Sunday, the Valley News published my op-ed Yankee's Closing Will Hurt Vermont. 

I always enjoy having an op-ed in the my local Sunday paper.  I hope you read it. It's about the probable effects on Vermont when Vermont Yankee closes.

Factors Affecting Vermont Electricity 

As I wrote in the op-ed:

Vermont Yankee’s closing will affect everyone in Vermont. It will make our electricity more expensive, more fossil-fuel based and less reliable.

I explained the factors that will affect our power supply and pricing after Vermont Yankee closes.  Specifically:

• The plant will not be replaced by renewables.  Wind turbine construction in Vermont is practically at a standstill, for example.
• Our power will come from outside Vermont, and be subject to various sorts of interruption, including too few natural gas supply lines, ice storms, and HydroQuebec needing to use its electricity in Quebec during a cold snap.
• The electricity price will follow the grid price of natural gas.  According to FERC, the New England price of natural gas is set to rise substantially (from $6.60 MMBTU to $11.75 MMBTU).  In the rest of the country, the price of natural gas is set to remain stable.
• Grid payments of $75 million to oil-burning plants (the ISO-NE Winter Reliability Program) will be rolled into our electricity costs.

What About the People at Vermont Yankee?

Realtor map of my area
Map shows town boundaries
Dartmouth is in Hanover
My home is in Hartford

Several people asked me why I didn't mention the people at Vermont Yankee, the effect of the plant closing on the local economy, the effect on the state economy, the effect on the state taxes?  

There's a simple reason.  I live about sixty miles north of the plant, and I think people in this area don't care very much about southern Vermont.  People here generally commute across the bridge to New Hampshire, where they work at Dartmouth College, Dartmouth Medical Center, and many high-tech industries spawned by Dartmouth (for example, HyperTherm).  

People here care where their electricity comes from. They care about reliability and about environmental impact.  They care somewhat about their electric bills.  My own feeling is people here don't care that much about what happens to Brattleboro or Vernon. They are insulated from many aspects of the Vermont economy through their jobs in New Hampshire.

Therefore, for my local paper, I wrote about things that affect all of Vermont: where our electricity comes from, how reliable it is, how fossil fuels will be used to produce our electricity, and how expensive electricity may become.

The Op-Ed

For an op-ed, Yankee's Closing Will Hurt Vermont was  very data-dense!  Sometimes I wondered--where was the "opinion" part?  Why did I write it this way?

Still, it was fun to write, and I plan to reprint it on this blog in a week or so.  

However, I always like to have people access the op-ed at the newspaper for a few days before I begin putting it on my own blog.  I hope you enjoy the article.

----

P.S.  Just came across an article in a Boston business journal which says that Boston should expect a 20% percent price rise in electricity this winter, for some of the same reasons I discussed for expecting price rises in Vermont.

Unintended Consequences from Decommissioning Funds: Guest Post by John Alan Rodericks

Late last month, I wrote about my sorrow at Vermont Yankee closing in the post We are not Spock: Emotion and Nuclear Power, published at ANS Nuclear Cafe.  There were very insightful comments on that post, and they deserved further discussion.  I obtained permission to use some of these comments as guest posts on my own blog.  This comment is by John Alan Rodericks.

-----------

Thank you for this well-written and thoughtful post.

Account book 1909

I view this conversion of decom money to cash flow as THE issue of the future in this post-deregulated electric power generation world — an unintended consequence of an ill-conceived plan. As such, it echoes the theme that is prevailing in the electric power industry at this time… what was once the domicile of engineers is now the domain of accountants.

My estimates are that it will cost about $500-700 million to replace VY’s megawatts with a highly efficient gas-fired 2-and-1 combined cycle plant that will be dispatchable in much less time and have a much smaller staff (assuming they can get the needed natural gas capacity). However, this will come at the expense of fuel diversity and proper market function as margin prices become easier to manipulate thorough strategic and calculated fuel hedging. Pilgrim likely will not be far behind.

New England could well find itself in a mess and it will be too late to do anything about it.

-----------
John Alan Rodericks wrote this about himself and his post:


I have worked in electric power generation for 32 years with (former) Cambridge Electric Light Co. as a plant operator.... Although I have never worked in nuclear, I've read extensively about it and have a number of friends who have been in nukes for many years. I am disturbed by the trend which is developing in New England, despite the advent of supposedly abundant shale gas. In my time I've seen cycles play out, and view this as just another one.

I hope for a more thoughtful discussion about nuclear going forward, although Vermont Yankee seems like fait accompli. We must learn the lesson from it.

After Vermont Yankee: A Poor Area Will Become Poorer

Last week, The Commons newspaper held a forum on the future of the area around Vermont Yankee.  The forum was titled: Toward a Post-Nuclear Economy.  Life after Vermont Yankee: What is Next? My previous blog post on this subject is Yankee Rowe and the Soul of a Nuclear Worker. 

A friend of mine attended the panel, and told me that the panelists were divided between two sets of people:

• Opponents of Vermont Yankee wanted to talk about how to force Entergy to do prompt decommissioning, how to force Entergy to greenfield the plant site. Their main topic was: “Let’s get Entergy!”
• Local people and groups know that Entergy is a major employer, tax-payer, and source of funds and volunteers for local not-for-profits. This employer is about to leave. For local groups, the main topic was: "How will this area cope with VY's departure?"

How can the area move forward?  How can it even begin to replace Vermont Yankee? That is the big question for most people in Vermont.

Economics 101: We Are All Part of A Community

When the community becomes poorer, most of the people in the community become poorer in one way or another.   “Too bad about the plant workers but I’ll be okay” isn't really going to work for the neighboring area.  Other communities have faced these types of problems when a major employer leaves the area:

• Hospitals, doctors and nurses are affected by the sudden local loss of hundreds of people with high-paying private health insurance. 
• Schools will see tax revenues decline: they may drop some of their sports teams, some teachers may be laid off, others may teach bigger classes. 
• Restaurants may keep shorter hours and some may fold.  
• Auto dealerships may sell fewer cars.  

The local community will become poorer.

And Southern Vermont is not that rich right now.  The median annual income for workers in Brattleboro is around $41,000 while the state-wide median is $53,000.  (From the recent Olga Peters article in The Commons.)  According to the United Way report (page 21) between 22% and 60% of Windham County children get free or reduced-price lunches.  The reduced-price-lunch percentage can be considered a proxy for estimating child poverty.

Windham county is not rich now, and it is about to get poorer.  How could the county turn this around?

Economics 102: Creating Prosperity

A community becomes prosperous by making a product or providing a service that other people will spend money to buy.  No community can stand on its own, importing nothing.  Every community has to “export” something, at least to neighboring areas, to get money to buy what it needs.  What can the Brattleboro area export?

I thought of two ways that the Brattleboro area can attempt to revitalize itself after the plant leaves.  Unfortunately, I don’t think either of these two ways will work.

The Tourist Magnet

Brattleboro can attempt to become a tourist magnet. This would not be strictly export, but it is a way of attracting money from outside the area.

While all of Vermont is a tourist magnet of some type, Brattleboro will have a hard time moving up the ladder of “destinations.” Brattleboro is trying to revitalize its downtown, and is very aware of where its downtown visitors come from. (Commons article: Brattleboro's Potential for Greatness)

In my opinion, though, Brattleboro is going to be a hard sell as a tourist destination.  The area is pretty, but doesn't have the high local income and interesting history (Privateers! Clipper ships!) that helped a place like Newburyport re-invent itself.   Brattleboro can’t start a music festival--it’s only twenty miles from the famous Marlboro Music Festival, and could hardly compete.  The area could try to be a theater or film mecca, but that would be a slow build-up.  The places that succeed at that sort of thing (Ashland Oregon for example) generally have multiple stages and have been growing their influence for many years.  The successful arts center of Santa Fe New Mexico has been an artistic center for over a century, and was near the home of the very famous artist Georgia O’Keefe.

“We don’t need Vermont Yankee, we will be an arts center” doesn’t seem to me to be a winning solution.

The Industrial Hub

The Brattleboro area can attempt to get another manufacturing facility into the town, either at the Vermont Yankee site or elsewhere.

Frankly, I think they have shot themselves in the foot about this one.  Given the “protesting” spirit of Brattleboro, most manufacturers would be hesitant to locate there.  Every factory has raw materials: many raw materials are poisonous if spilled.  If I were a manufacturer, I wouldn’t locate in a place where people are likely to begin tying themselves to the gate of  my plant if they heard I had a spill of toxic paints within the plant premises.

The people of Brattleboro might think....oh no, we ONLY protest nuclear plants! We'd love other types of factories!  However,  most manufacturers will NOT want to locate in an area where protesting so-called "environmental issues" at factory gates is a way of life.

In short, I think Brattleboro has messed itself up big-time by its attitude to Vermont Yankee.  In this WPTZ video, you can see Arnie Gundersen suggesting that a new power plant be built on the Vermont Yankee site. He doesn’t say what kind of plant, however!  Can you imagine the local protests if they attempted to run a gas pipeline to the site, build a coal plant, or build a biomass plant? Heavens!

Not an easy future

I wish the Southern Vermont area the very best, if only because many Vermont Yankee workers would like to stay in the area. However,  I don't think it is going to be a very upbeat future around there.  At least, not for many years.



I include a video from WCAX on the future of the area.


 WCAX.COM Local Vermont News, Weather and Sports-

Thirty Jobs by Year-End. Vermont Yankee Job Elimination

Thirty Jobs to Be Eliminated at Vermont Yankee

On July 20, I wrote a post Layoffs Possible at Vermont Yankee.  At that time, the best estimations I could get were that 65 jobs would be eliminated at Vermont Yankee.

July 30 was the official announcement. As Susan Smallheer at the Times Argus reported: "Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant will lose 30 of its 650 employees by the end of the year."  It wasn't just chance that the announcement was July 30: that was also the day that Entergy announced its second quarter earnings and had its earnings call.

Jobs Before the End of the Year

Judging from various reports, Entergy announced an initiative called "Human Capital Management" some time ago. They acknowledged that this initiative would lead to workforce reductions. (Snark alert: "Human Capital Management."  Don't you just love these corporate euphemisms?  End snark.) However, until July 30, Entergy did not announce how many jobs would be eliminated.

During the earnings call,  Entergy CEO Leo Denault announced that 800 jobs would be eliminated, company-wide.  After the call, Terry Young, an Entergy Vice President, spoke about the merchant plants, and was quoted by Smallheer:

Indian Point

Young said it would mean the loss of about 30 jobs at Vermont Yankee, and similar losses at Pilgrim Nuclear in Massachusetts — in both cases a 4 percent reduction in the workforce. The FitzPatrick plant in Oswego, N.Y., will lose 35 positions, or about 5 percent.
At the Indian Point nuclear plant outside New York City, which is a two-reactor site, job losses will affect 75 people, a 7 percent cut in the workforce. 

Whose Jobs?

The number of jobs to be eliminated is known at this point: 30 jobs. However, whose job will be eliminated is not yet known.  The Vermont Yankee organization has been redesigned. New organization charts are being distributed.  Current employees will apply for a new position that is a new slot in the organization.

In Terri Hallenbeck's article in the Burlington Free Press:

Rep. Mike Hebert, R-Vernon, said he’s spoken with people who work at the plant who were relieved the announced layoffs weren’t higher. “Many of these cuts are going to be attrition,” he said. “I know a lot of folks who are slated to retire. They just won’t be replaced.”

Some people at the plant may be laid off by the end of the year, but attrition and retirement will also eliminate some jobs.  In other words, somewhere between zero and thirty people will actually lose their jobs at the plant by the end of the year. Six hundred and fifty people work at Vermont Yankee.

The Plant Will Stay Safe

Plant opponents have had a field day claiming the plant safety will be compromised by this layoff.   However, the plant will continue to be safe, for three main reasons:

1. It's a relatively small cut in staffing. By the time retirement and attrition are considered, I suspect that only about 2% of the workforce will actually be cut.  Pretty much any big business can handle this level of reduction.
2. Entergy is committed to safe operation.  Entergy VP Terry Young was quoted in an article by Andrew Stein at Vermont Digger  "We will pay special attention to ensure the changes we are making do not impact the hands-on, core functions of daily operations of plants, so that there’s no impact on safety and reliability."
3. The NRC is committed to safe operation. The NRC has seen reorganizations before and knows how to ensure safety during the process. Quoting the Vermont Digger article:  “There have been reorganizations in the past at other U.S. nuclear power plants,” (NRC Spokesman) Sheehan said. “As in those cases, the NRC (continues to use)... our Reactor Oversight Process. …"  The NRC also accepts allegations from any member of the plant staff who has a safety concern.  In other words, the NRC has seen reorganizations before, done this before, and the plants continue to operate safely.

My Conclusion

Job elimination is a painful and miserable process.  I had a hard time writing about it because it is difficult to keep an appropriate tone.

Rebecca

What is the right tone, after all?  I feel a mixture of sadness that this is happening at all, and relief that only a few people will be laid off at the plant. (IBM recently laid off more than 400 people in Vermont.) However, the people who are laid off may be badly affected, because there just aren't that many jobs in Windham County.  It may be hard for people to get another job without moving away. The last thing I want to do is appear as a Pollyanna about this announcement. 

Still, I think that Entergy is committed to continued operation of the plant. Furthermore, the vast majority of people working at the plant (96%) will continue to have jobs. Vermont Yankee has the lowest percentage job reductions of any of Entergy's merchant plants.  And  Vermont Yankee will continue to operate safely.  

I hope I can make these somewhat upbeat statements without being a Pollyanna. 

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

(I couldn't find a picture of Pollyanna, so I used Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm instead.)

Layoffs Possible at Vermont Yankee

Illustration of "Okuns Law"
A relationship between
GDP and unemployment rates 

Lay-offs Possible at Vermont Yankee

A few days ago, a reporter called to ask me if I had heard anything about layoffs at Vermont Yankee.  I hadn't.

However, within a day or so, a different reporter, Andrew Stein at Vermont Digger, had written an article about the (probable) impending layoffs: Vermont Yankee owner: 'Expect workforce reductions'. Using leaked internal documents, Stein concluded that Entergy workers were "essentially being asked to reapply for their jobs" including filling out an 18 page form.  Apparently, this is part of  Entergy's "Human Capital Management Initiative."  Stein  estimated a 10% reduction in force, which would be 65 layoffs among the work force of 650 people.

When the Stein article appeared, I also received an email from Entergy. It was apparently the same Entergy statement that was quoted in the Stein article. The statement included the words: "workforce reductions will be one result of this initiative."

So I guess layoffs will happen at Vermont Yankee.

Reactions

For Vermont, this Vermont Yankee announcement comes closely behind an announcement of layoffs at IBM: the Essex Junction IBM plant is laying off 419 people. IBM is one of the state's largest private-enterprise employers.  In the Vermont Digger article on the IBM layoffs, Governor Peter Shumlin is quoted as saying that businesses in Vermont are desperate to hire the great workers now being laid off at IBM.  I hope that is the case.  However, to me, Vermont seems more hard-scrabble than Shumlin claims.

The Vermont Public Radio article on the Vermont Yankee layoffs quoted two people who are opposed to the continuing operation of Vermont Yankee.

• The state is advocating against Vermont Yankee receiving a Certificate of Public Good from the Public Service Board. Geoff Collins is the state's lead lawyer in the hearings.  Collins said that the layoff  "would appear to have an impact on the magnitude of the economic benefit that they’re (Entergy is) claiming." He wouldn't speculate on the amount of effect the layoff would have on the economics for the state.
• Ray Shadis, a long-time plant opponent, asked if Entergy was "asking permission to go ahead and lose money for another 20 years?"    

In Context

For once, I don't have cheery upbeat things to say.  I wish these layoffs weren't happening.  However, it doesn't mean Entergy is going to shut the plant down.  If anything, it shows a commitment to keep operating the plant.

Entergy's "Second Quarter Earnings Guidance" press release listed various reasons for revenue shortfall.  In my experience, companies almost always arrange a layoff when revenue drops.  They announce the layoff,  and then the company's stock usually goes up. A few months later they are hiring again.  That's my experience in working for big companies, anyhow.

In Context With Other Nuclear Plants

However, I think Entergy will try to continue to run this plant lean, and will not hire again very rapidly.  I tried to analyze plant staffing, and I came to the conclusion that Vermont Yankee has been at the high end of the staffing curve.

Vermont Yankee is a stand-alone plant, which means it has to have its own security, chemistry lab, and many other things. It cannot share these relatively fixed costs  with another unit.  For example, a chemistry lab needs about the same equipment and staff to serve a double-unit power plant instead of serving a single unit plant. So a chemistry lab is a higher overhead cost for a single-unit plant.

I did an ad-hoc financial review of plant staffing: how many people does a plant employ per MW?  With a short investigation, this is what I found.

Seabrook Station

• Vermont Yankee is 620 MW and employs 650 people.
• Indian Point (two units) is 2050 MW and employs 1,100 people (from Wikipedia)
• Duane Arnold is 615 MW and employs "more than 500" people (from Wikipedia) or 600 people (Duane Arnold fact sheet) 
• Dresden Station (two units) is 1734 MW and has "approximately 800" employees (Exelon description)
• Seabrook Station is 1244 MW and has 1,100 people in its workforce (Seabrook fact sheet)

Single or Double

The double units (two units on one site) have less than one employee per MW: they have closer to one employee per two MW.  Therefore, the double units have a clear cost advantage.  The single units run slightly less than one employee per MW. Vermont Yankee is running slightly more than one employee per MW, which is why I said it was at the high end of the staffing scale, as far as I can tell.

By the way, people knew about the economies of scale at the time these plants were built. Both Vermont Yankee and Seabrook were supposed to be one part of a two-plant site.  That didn't happen, unfortunately.

I am not happy writing about layoffs.  Getting a job is never easy, and losing a job is always hard.  But I decided to write this because I don't want to be Pollyanna.

Layoffs as Part of Business

There will be layoffs at Vermont Yankee.  I hate it and I hope that none of the people that I know are laid off. (That is selfish of me, but there it is.) However, from my analysis, these layoffs do seem to be a business decision, and will only bring the staffing down to the levels (employees per MW) at other stand-alone plants.  The "will they be able to run the plant safely?" and "are they about to go out of business?" stuff strikes me as just the usual negativity from people who hate the plant.

That said, I hate the fact that there will be layoffs.  I just hate it.

Off Shore Wind Versus Nuclear: Guest Post by Willem Post

Off Shore Wind Versus Nuclear: Guest Post by Willem Post

AWC Schematic, from their website

Introduction by Meredith Angwin

Atlantic Wind Connection (AWC) plans to enable the Atlantic Coast to use off-shore wind efficiently.  As their website says:

The Mid-Atlantic region offers more than 60,000 MW of offshore wind potential in the relatively shallow waters of the outer continental shelf. 

The Atlantic Wind Connection (AWC) backbone transmission project is an essential foundation to this new industry.

Evaluation by Willem Post

Trans-Elect and Atlantic Grid Development are the Atlantic Wind Connection, AWC, project developers.

When completed, the AWC will be able to carry as much as 7,000 MW of offshore wind energy to consumers along the US East Coast.

With a project plan that envisages construction extending from 2016 - 2026, the developers intend to build out the offshore transmission backbone in five phases at a total expected cost of $6.311 billion. The capital cost of the IWTs (Industrial Wind Turbines) would be 7,000 MW x $4.2 million/MW = $24.53 Billion, for a total of $35.7 billion

Energy production would be 7,000 MW x 8,760 hr/yr x CF 0.40 = 24.53 TWh/yr
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/01/17/atlantic-wind-connection-chooses-new-jersey-for-phase-i-offshore-transmission-backbone/

For comparison: The capital cost of 7,000 MW of nuclear plants (7 standard 1,000 MW plants) would be about $28 billion and the energy production of would be 7,000 MW x 8,760 hr/yr x CF 0.90 = 55.20 TWh/yr; more than twice the production at much less capital cost. They could all be built in about 10 years, thereby reducing CO2 much sooner than the IWTs which would take 20 years.

Completing the project would enable transmission of renewable offshore wind power to consumers in NY, Pennsylvania, NJ, Delaware, Maryland, Washington D.C. and Virginia.

According to a project analysis performed by IHS Global Insight, the AWC transmission backbone would be able to deliver:

3,417 MW of electrical power to NJ (44% of AWC’s total capacity);
1,015 MW to Delaware (13%);
1,013 MW to Maryland (13%)
2.297 MW to Virginia (30%).

Based on the above, it appears the energy cost of the IWTs will be at least 20 c/kWh and of the nuclear plants about 10 c/kWh, per EIA/US-DOE

--------
About Willem Post

Willem Post is one of the most-read bloggers at The Energy Collective.  He has a B.S. and M.S. in Mechanical Engineering, and also an MBA.  He designed systems and evaluated costs for utility systems and large buildings.   He is an internationally recognized expert on the economics of wind power.

Post is a founding member of the Coalition for Energy Solutions, and an occasional guest blogger at this blog, for example, his November 2012 guest post: Wind in Vermont is Oversold.

Earnings, Lawsuits, NRC Meeting: Playing Catch-up

So much action, so little time!  In the past few days or coming up soon:

• Entergy filed its first-quarter earnings report.
• Entergy sued about the state delaying permission for Vermont Yankee diesel generators.
• Yearly NRC meeting on Vermont Yankee is scheduled for Tuesday, April 30 in Brattleboro.  

Frankly, each of these could be its own blog post, but that is not going to happen very quickly.  So here's a little catch-up!

More catch-up soon on Howard Shaffer's presentation yesterday to the legislative committee, but that will be its own blog post. His presentation went very well.

First Quarter Earnings

In late March, I wrote a post about Vermont Yankee Financial Analysis: The Write-Down and More.  In this post, I noted that Entergy had taken a "write-down" (decreased the official valuation) on the Vermont Yankee power plant in April 2012, and that an analyst report said that the plant was quite likely to be closed by Entergy.  However, that same report considered the rise in natural gas prices to be "recent rally" caused by some kind of "perceived supply constraint."  The report claimed that this natural gas supply constraint would be easily remedied by FERC and ISO-NE actions. 

At the time, I wrote that I didn't see anything in the Entergy's reports or the analyst report that showed the merchant-generator nuclear plants to be operating at a loss.  Also, I said I didn't believe the rising price of natural gas was a "recent rally" that would be easily fixed. In other words, I believed that the merchant plants were running profitably 

Well, yeah.  I was right.  (Note. I am not in the stock-evaluation business. I just like to boast when I'm right.) 

 The Entergy press release on its first quarter earnings show that earnings went from  $0.44 a share first quarter last year to $0.94 cents a share first quarter this year.  The press release also mentions Vermont Yankee's breaker-to-breaker run.  

Lots more information is available in the earnings report and the earnings call transcript at Seeking Alpha.  The regulated utility business earned $0.69/share (as-reported figure) and the merchant plants earned $0.46/ share. In other words, the merchant plants made a very significant input to Entergy's profitability.

Basically, the rise in gas prices led to these increased profits. Nationwide, gas prices doubled this year: gas prices went from below $2 MMCF in April 2012 to above $4 MMCF in April 2013. Also, there were local supply constraints (very few pipelines). During the cold weather, pipeline constraints led to amazingly high local natural gas prices, and therefore to high grid prices and high earnings for the merchant plants.  No surprises there.  

Most of the earnings call ignored the merchant plants (except for discussing the tragic accident in Arkansas and its implications). The call focused on a planned merger or spin-off or something (I didn't follow it) of part of Entergy's regulated transmission business in the South.

New Lawsuit

Vermont Yankee and Vernon Dam

Also in March, I wrote about Vermont Yankee's need for a new diesel generator: Black start, Intervention and some links.  Vermont Yankee needs the generator in  order to meet the NRC's black start requirements when Vernon Dam is no longer considered a black start facility. (Black start facilities are charged with re-energizing the grid after a major regional power outage.) Vermont Yankee applied to the Vermont Public Service Board for permission (Certificate of Public Good) to install this generator.  I wrote that intervenors had been allowed on the docket, and were complicating and delaying the granting of this certificate.

Well, on Wednesday, the PSB issued a scheduling order which showed that the docket will not be resolved until considerably AFTER the date that Vermont Yankee needs to begin constructing the pad for the diesel. On Thursday (yesterday) Vermont Yankee sued the state in federal court. Entergy said that the PSB was interfering with nuclear safety, a federal mandate. Andrew Stein of Vermont Digger has a good article on this issue: Entergy files new lawsuit against Vermont, this time over diesel backup power permit. 

Update: The Digger article now has a link to the Entergy filing.  Interestingly, Entergy asked TransCanada to keep Vernon Dam as a blackstart facility.  That is, Entergy asked TransCanada to contract with Entergy to keep the dam blackstart-ready (Entergy would pay for this, no doubt). However, TransCanada refused to make this contract.  This info is on page 15 of the document linked above.

NRC Meeting

On April 30, at Brattleboro Union High School, the NRC will hold its annual meeting to discuss its Vermont Yankee safety assessment. The meeting will begin at 5:30 with an open house and follow with a question and answer period. Here's the NRC announcement.

Last year's NRC meeting was very unpleasant, in an atmosphere close to mob rule.  I wrote about it at ANS Nuclear Cafe, with the title NRC Meeting in Brattleboro: The Politics of Intimidation.

Yes.  I am going again this year.  I believe in showing up.

NRC leaving meeting, 2012
Police protecting them from protestors
that had surrounded their seats at the
front of the room

The opponents will show up also, I am sure.  Or not.  I am not so sure. A letter by Nancy Braus in The Commons (Brattleboro newspaper) claims the NRC doesn't listen and is "not our voice."   It claims we have wasted our time preparing questions and sharing our education with  the NRC. The letter is described as follows: This letter is written on behalf of the Safe and Green Campaign, an antinuclear organization comprised of people who live in the evacuation zone around Vermont Yankee.

Personally, I can assure you that the NRC listens to everyone--the letter-writer here seems to think that "listen to us" means "obey us." Oh well.  

Anyhow, the fact that the letter was written "on behalf of" the major local anti-nuclear campaign makes me wonder whether some of them will boycott the meeting, and maybe there will be less intimidation this year.    I hope so.

Update: Whoops. I was wrong. It's the opposite of a boycott.  I just looked at my home-town paper, and the campaign is running a carpool from White River Junction to Brattleboro for the meeting.  So I expect a big opponent presence at the meeting. There may have been carpools other years, but if so, the carpools weren't announced in my local paper. 

It Was Safety, Safety, Safety. Lawyers can't rescue a weak case

Op-Ed by Meredith Angwin

The state of Vermont was back in federal court in January, again claiming that the Senate vote of 2010 was a legally valid reason for the state to close Vermont Yankee. This was the second attempt by the state to make that case. A year ago, U.S. District Court Judge J. Garvan Murtha ruled for Entergy, Yankee’s owner. For the federal appeals court hearing in January, Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell switched gears a bit: He hired high-priced legal help — Washington, D.C., litigator David Frederick.

Attorney General Sorrell

After the Murtha ruling, some plant opponents claimed that the state had simply been “outlawyered” by Entergy. Sorrell took the reasonable next step of getting a more high-powered attorney for the appeal. However, a good lawyer can get you only so far if the facts aren’t on your side. The state’s real problem is that it has a weak case.

Federal Jurisdiction

Like airplane safety, nuclear safety is regulated by the federal government, not the states. Regulating nuclear and airline safety is a federal mandate partially because of the complexity of the regulated activities and partially to prevent wide variations in the degree of regulation among states.

The Vermont Yankee case hinges on a state Senate vote that denied Vermont Yankee the state-required certificate of public good. Murtha ruled that the Legislature had encroached on the federal mandate to regulate nuclear safety. Murtha based much of his ruling on quotes that referred to plant safety. In Murtha’s view, these quotes from the legislative debate revealed the motive for the senators’ votes.

To prevail in its appeal at the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, the state had to address this question: If safety concerns didn’t drive the Senate vote to reject Vermont Yankee’s application for a certificate of public good, what did? Citing a 1983 Supreme Court ruling that recognized the state of California’s right to regulate the economic aspects of a nuclear power plant, Vermont’s lawyer tried to make the case that his client had economic reasons to close the plant. It’s a tough case to make.

Economics and Timing

Graph from the Consensus Report

For starters, the timing of the Senate vote three years ago provides strong evidence that economics was hardly an overriding concern. The Legislature had commissioned a report on the economic impact of Vermont Yankee and of aggressive development of renewable energy sources. This report was to be jointly prepared by two separate economic firms and called the “consensus report.” The study was due to be completed in March 2010. Yet the Senate cast its vote on Vermont Yankee in February. It is also worth noting that the February vote came shortly after a tritium leak was discovered at the plant. Although the tritium posed no threat to public health, it did generate a huge outcry about the safety of plant operations.

It seems clear that the Senate didn’t wait a few weeks for the economic consensus report because their vote wasn’t about economics.

During his arguments before the three-judge panel, Frederick was forced to resort to a fair amount of speculation to make an “economics” case. He claimed that if Entergy were to go bankrupt and if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission didn’t do an adequate job of supervising the decommissioning fund, then the state might face financial liabilities in the future. This degree of hypothesizing about events that “could” happen is unlikely to prove convincing.

Economics Today: Vermont Yankee May Pay Vermont Utilities

In terms of present-day economics, Frederick was on even weaker ground. He said that the paid-off nuclear plant makes it hard for newer plants to be built. That statement implies Vermont has an economic incentive to shut down cost-effective power plants. Entergy’s attorney, Kathleen Sullivan, argued that no Vermont utility is under any obligation to buy Vermont Yankee’s power, whether it is expensive or cheap. She pointed out that different circumstances prevailed in California in 1983 when the Supreme Court allowed a state to regulate the economic aspects of nuclear power. The California plant sold power directly to customers at regulated rates. Vermont Yankee, however, sells its power to the grid. Frederick countered her by saying the utilities still have a “relationship” with Vermont Yankee — one worth $587 million.

Frederick was referring to a revenue-sharing arrangement that was part of the original sales agreement with Entergy. The provision, which kicked in last year, says that if Vermont Yankee sells power for more than 6.1 cents per kilowatt hour, it has to split the revenue above 6.1 cents with Vermont utilities.

That agreement is worth potentially hundreds of millions to the utilities and ratepayers of Vermont. Its value depends on the price at which Vermont Yankee sells its power. I don’t know where Frederick derived such a precise number ($587 million) for the revenue share. However, a half-billion dollar financial relationship will be very helpful for the utilities (and therefore the ratepayers) of Vermont. Utilities could use the money to improve infrastructure or avoid raising rates.

Hundreds of millions of dollars in potential revenue sharing is not a reason to shut the plant down. What, exactly, is the logic here: Shut it down before it shares money with us?

Professor Hanna

A Lawyer's Opinion

Frederick’s statements on revenue sharing went by in a flash, near the end of the hearing. The appeals hearing in New York City was very brief. The court had scheduled 15 minutes for arguments from each side. From opening gavel to “thank you” from the judges, it lasted 37 minutes, moving much like a rapid-fire tennis match. The good news is that it is possible to listen to an audio of the entire hearing in less time than it takes to eat a leisurely dinner. (The audio is available in my Jan. 15 blog post, at Yes Vermont Yankee.) The bad news is that statements that could easily have been refuted by the opposition lawyers or judges were not challenged.

Despite the brevity of the hearing, the judges are expected to take weeks or months to rule on the appeal.

In her recap of the hearing, Vermont Law School professor Cheryl Hanna wrote, “The state should be happy that the bench at least took seriously their argument that Judge Murtha should not have ruled as he did. Whether the gravitas and intellect of Frederick is enough to convince them in the face of overwhelming evidence that the legislature was (not) primarily motivated by safety is harder to call. The state still bears the burden, and the facts and (in my opinion) the law still favor Entergy. If the state loses, it won’t be because it was out-lawyered.”

No, it will be because the state can’t make a credible case that Vermont officials were thinking about economics when they voted to close the plant.


----------

This op-ed first appeared in the Valley News (my local paper) on February 10 and I put up a blog post with a link.   It was also published at Vermont Digger. It may well appear in other places around the state (I sent to several more newspapers), but I thought is was time to put it on my own blog, too.

Vermont Yankee is Refueling and I Sort of Told You So

Carla Heath holds sign about Vermont Yankee's future
March 2012 rally for Vermont Yankee, at the plant gates

Vermont Yankee will refuel this spring.  An article Wednesday in the Burlington Free Press was headlined: Vermont Yankee plans refueling with eye on 20 more years.  This article by Terri Hallenbeck includes the following quote from Vermont Yankee spokesman Rob Williams:

“We’re proceeding business as usual and making upgrades where necessary,” Williams said. “As we plan this outage our assumption is we’re operating until 2032."

A more complete list of planned upgrades can be found in the Vermont Business Magazine article by Timothy McQuiston: Vermont Yankee Will Refuel This Spring.  According to that article: Among the operations planned for the outage to keep the plant up-to-date are: replacing and refurbishing some components; general preventative maintenance; replacing a large transformer; overhauling one of the three feed-water pumps; and replacing a recirculation-pump motor.

So why am I saying "I sort of told you so"?  These articles were posted on February 20, and this blog post is February 22.  I am just catching up with the news, right?

Not completely.  The background for this story always includes a recent financial analysis report by UBS.  The report claims that Vermont Yankee is uneconomical and may well be closed by Entergy.  Andrew Stein at Vermont Digger reports on this analysis. An earlier article by Stein provides a link directly to the UBS report.

I was interviewed about the UBS report last week.  I felt its conclusions were umm...overstated. In other words, I am not surprised that Vermont Yankee is refueling instead of closing down.

To some extent, I told you so. I told you last week.

Is Vermont Yankee Uneconomical?

Last week, Pat Bradley of WAMC interviewed three people about the UBS report.  I was one of the interviewees.  Bradley does a great job of summarizing the arguments in about three minutes.

As you might guess, I was the only interviewee who said Vermont Yankee was probably not going to close.  This was not just Meredith-being-optimistic. My reason was that natural gas prices set the price on the grid, and natural gas prices are high in the Northeast. So grid prices are higher here than other places.  Therefore,  merchant nuclear plants in this area can probably make money, especially since gas prices are very likely to rise in the future.

 You can listen to three people (including me) interviewed by Bradley at this link: Financial Firm Predicts Closure of Vermont Yankee.    About a day later,  Matt Wald of the New York Times wrote an article about gas and electricity prices: In New England, a Natural Gas Trap. His article confirmed what I said on the radio about gas and electricity prices in this region.  I also suggest reading Jim Hopf's ANS Nuclear Cafe post on Potential nuclear plant closures and what could be done to stop them.  The early section on natural gas prices is most relevant to Vermont Yankee.

In my opinion, the UBS report assumes natural gas prices are going to stay low for a long time.  There are many reasons to think the opposite.  I think:

• natural gas prices will be highest in the Northeast (due to pipeline constraints)
• prices will rise all over the country (as the gas glut diminishes over time).  

This means grid prices will be higher in the Northeast and merchant nuclear plants in this area will be in a good situation in the near future.

I think Entergy probably came to a conclusion similar to mine.

Vermont Yankee is refueling.

Column: Lawyers Can’t Rescue a Weak Case | Valley News

Column: Lawyers Can’t Rescue a Weak Case | Valley News

My op-ed in the Valley News this morning. In appeals court, Vermont lawyers tried to make the case that Vermont has "economic" reasons to shut Vermont Yankee.

Actually, of course, Vermont Yankee is a major economic asset to the state of Vermont. Vermont has no economic reason to close it.

As the title says: "Lawyers can't rescue a weak case."

Proudly Made in America: Guest post by Evan Twarog

Proudly Made in America

Evan Twarog
November 7 Public Service Board meeting

America is the greatest nation on the planet. Period. When we’re out shopping and see those three words “Made in America”, there is a small bit of pride that we get out of knowing we are supporting jobs right here at home. Small mom and pop store or multibillion dollar corporation, an American business is still an American business. The Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant is run by one of those American businesses, and supports more than 620 jobs right here in our local community.

Many workers who run the facility are veterans who have proudly served our nation in uniform. Some started off in the Coast Guard defending our shores, and saving those who fall into harm’s way. Some started off serving in our nation’s Navy, keeping waters across the world safe from hostile enemies. Some started off protecting the skies in our nation’s Air Force. Still more served in our Army and Marine Corp, defending our freedom both in times of national crisis and war. We must salute these men and women who selflessly defended our nation and are now working in our community.

As the legal battle over Vermont Yankee’s future has played out, there has been a near complete disregard by the State of Vermont to realize the fact that Vermont Yankee supports well-paying AMERICAN jobs, and there is no rational economic reason for shutting down the facility. Governor Shumlin, a long-time critic of the facility, once said “We’re doing all we can so that Vermont can move on from this old plant and move towards an energy future that sends Entergy Louisiana back to Louisiana.” Governor Shumlin, in case you didn’t realize, we are all Americans. We all salute the same flag. We all are part of the same nation. Frankly, I am disgusted by your inability to realize that by shutting down the facility, you will gain nothing but force 620 AMERICANS out of a job.

Vermont Yankee should be a symbol of pride for the community and region. Here, 620 skilled Americans produce clean, cheap, and reliable electricity, while supporting dozens of non-profit organizations with hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations each year. The facility produces power right here in Vermont. Not in Massachusetts. Not in New York. Not in Canada. Vermont. Wouldn’t you rather have your hard-earned money stay local and support local American jobs?

When we buy products with those words “Made in America”, we know we are supporting jobs right here at home in these rough economic times. So why is it that we can’t as a community, as a state, and as Americans, support the Americans who work at Vermont Yankee and are such an integral part of our community?

Evan Twarog, Age 15
112 Ridgewood Ave.
Keene, NH

-----------

Evan Twarog has been an articulate and effective supporter of Vermont Yankee for several years.  This letter also appeared in True North Reports, The Commons, the Brattleboro Reformer, and other local newspapers.

Evan Twarog has two other guest posts at this blog:

• A Teen's View of Vermont Yankee (November 2011) 
• Testimony at the Public Service Board meeting: Vital for the Region and My Family.  (November 2012)

Evan's mother, Cheryl Twarog, testified at the November 2012 hearing and has a guest post at this blog: When Did Nuclear Become a Four-Letter Word?

I am proud to know the Twarog family!

Vermont Yankee: State Claims "Economic" Argument for Closing Plant

A few days ago, I described the three court hearings about Vermont Yankee that will occur this week. Three Vermont Yankee Hearings: The Week of Living Lawyerly. The first hearing, in the Federal Court of Appeals, happened yesterday.

In this three-minute clip, Fox News describes the court hearing in New York yesterday. FOX44 - Burlington / Plattsburgh News, Weather



Economics? The State Has Financial Interests? Huh?

In this hearing, the State made a case that it wasn't interested in nuclear safety, no, not at all.  It was interested in money!  Specifically, it had financial interests.

First, it feared that decommissioning of the plant might cost the state money. It is not clear to me what this has to do with when the plant is decommissioned, but still. It's their argument, not mine.

Second, the state claimed that the existence of the nuclear plant would slow down the growth of renewables.  Entergy Lawyer Kathleen Sullivan answered that one. She pointed out that state utilities are buying less than 3% of their power from Entergy. Therefore the existence or non-existence of the plant makes no difference to Vermont power contracts. Vermont utilities will continue to make purchase agreements with renewable or non-renewable power sources, as they do right now.

You can hear the audio of the entire court case, embedded at the bottom of this blog. It's about 40 minutes long.

The State's Argument is Backwards

Economics is the pro-Vermont Yankee argument. At the same time that the legislature was speaking about safety, I spoke to Rotaries and other clubs and groups and schools.  I always explained how Vermont Yankee provided jobs, taxes, economic benefits to the region, and low-cost power that enabled other jobs.

The state is arguing that Vermont Yankee should be closed for economic reasons. That is simply incomprehensible.  I would talk to groups about economics, but the opponents would talk about safety.  As a matter of fact, this was a problem for me.  The opponent's safety arguments were bogus, but they were emotionally compelling.  Talking about economics had far less emotional content.

The Tritium, the Waste Dump, the Fish, and the S-word

I find this whole thing so topsy-turvey!  I sat in those hearings, when the legislators said "We can't use the s-word (safety) but we can use the r-word (reliability)" and then proceeded to discuss safety.  That is what I heard.  I was there.

Opponents (including Governor Shumlin) gave press conferences about strontium attacking the teeth of children. They spoke of how it was a no-brainer to close the aged, leaking plant.  They spoke of the "radioactive waste dump" on the banks of the Connecticut. Shumlin stated that you shouldn't eat the fish in the river--even as the head of the Department of Health publicly disagreed with him.  It was "we really care about safety" all the way with the opponents.

The opponents never effectively countered the economics argument.  They just ignored it.  Now the state claims an economic argument for closing the plant?

Here's a blog post about economics from two years, ago, with links to reports  Economics and Vermont Yankee. The grid price of electricity is temporarily lower now, but the other economic benefits remain exactly as stated.

State's Argument Does Not Work

Any way you cut it, economics is a pro-Vermont Yankee argument. Even the opponent lawyer had to go into elaborate "what-if" scenarios  to try to make an economic argument for the state. IF Entergy goes bankrupt AND the NRC fails to regulate the decommissioning funds etc.

 Expensive lawyers (hired with my tax dollars) can't give the state a credible economic reason to close Vermont Yankee.

-------
References, including an Audio of the Hearing

There are many news stories on this hearing. Most of the viewers conclude that the State did far better this time by hiring an outside attorney.  Cheryl Hanna said she didn't know how the ruling would go, but the state did better this time. WCAX also has a good three-minue video clip.

Cheryl Hanna of Vermont Law School just posted an analysis: the law is still probably on Entergy's side, but the State made a far better case this time.

 The Vermont Digger article by Andrew Stein is complete, and includes a recording of the actual testimony.

Here's the embedding of the recording from the Digger article: about 40 minutes.

Update: I embedded the Vermont Digger audio above, but it is not appearing on some computers. I don't know why it doesn't appear.  If you do not have the audio on your computer, you can hear it at Vermont Digger.

Vermont Yankee is an Asset to Vermont, and the Sky Is Not Falling: Deb Schulze Guest Post

Deb Schulze

My name is Deb Schulze.  I am a Vermont native and live in North Springfield.

I am speaking tonight in favor of granting Vermont Yankee a Certificate of Public Good.

Vermont Yankee provides safe, clean and reliable electric power.

I have observed with increasing skepticism the tactics of VY’s opponents.  These folks are trying to scare everyone into believing this plant is old and broken down, and that just is not true.

VY is like most any business, it is continually maintained and upgraded and it is also carefully monitored by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Vermont Yankee has saved more than 50 million tons of carbon and other pollutants from being released into the environment.

We now live in a world of big plasma televisions, electric cars and a whole host of electronic gadgets. Our need for electricity is continually increasing.  Closing down Vermont’s largest producer of electricity (two-thirds of the in-state generation) makes absolutely no sense.

Vermont Yankee, along with and its employees and contractors provides more than $100 million per year, into both the local and state economy.  Taxes and payments to the state account for nearly $15 million.

2011, Entergy Vermont Yankee contributed approximately $435 thousand to the community through Entergy open grants, the Entergy Charitable Foundation, site sponsorships, and annual events.  This amount includes Vermont Yankee employee pledges/company match to the tune of $109,000 to the United Way.

The sky is not falling.  Through all of the negativism generated by the anti-nuke activists, Vermont Yankee has been quietly and continuously producing safe, clean, reliable power for over 40 years.

I hope you will grant it a certificate of public good so that it can continue to do so.

----------
Deb Schulze spoke at the Interactive TV hearing about Vermont Yankee on November 19.  Her husband, Bill Schulze, works at Vermont Yankee.  She was kind enough to share her testimony and provide this picture.

I plan to keep posting pro-VY testimony to my blog, as I can do so.  I have about twenty guest posts of testimony so far, but approximately fifty people made public statements in favor of Vermont Yankee at the two hearings.  I think the individual voices are strong, and the sum of the voices is truly powerful.  So I will keep posting them!