Hello Governor Scott, and Goodbye Shumlin!

Governor Shumlin's Christmas Greetings

Governor Shumlin (soon to be ex-Governor Shumlin) has been a fierce and unremitting foe of Vermont Yankee.

Yeah, yeah, we know that.  But I was still surprised to see a story by Mike Faher breaking on Christmas Day this year. Here's the article in VTDigger December 26,  Shumlin: Vermont Better Off Without Nuclear Plant.  Two years after the plant closed, and Shumlin is still crowing about closing it?  This is what Shumlin wants to say, just before he exits from being Governor?

 From the article above, some quotes from Shumlin.

Windham County has an advantage for economic development because "We can do cash." (Cash from the Entergy settlement fund for economic development of Windham County.) 

Furthermore, Vermont is "an example of how to reduce your carbon footprint and do electric generation right." 

Here's my opinion of the real meaning of his statements:

• First, Shumlin is  the "we" in the first statement. Entergy's $10 million in cash for Windham Country redevelopment will not make up for the loss of Vermont Yankee's payroll of 600 people.  However, Vermont Yankee controlled its payroll, while the Governor of Vermont (Shumlin) makes the final decision on how the Entergy economic development funds will be spent.   Indeed, Shumlin has controlled more cash after Vermont Yankee closed than he controlled when it was operating.  Shumlin could "do cash." That was his version of "we."  
• Second, Vermont Yankee made 70% of the power made in Vermont.  Now, we import this power from the grid....adding some solar and some wind turbines in-state haven't exactly given us this power back. For Shumlin, "doing electric generation right" means that someone else generates the electricity, and they generate it somewhere else.

A Sad Anniversary

Yesterday was the second anniversary of the day that the plant went off-line forever,  December 29 2014.  My Facebook news feed includes many people sharing unhappy memories of the day. I did not enjoy reading Shumlin's cheerful words on Christmas Day as the anniversary approached.

I also encourage people to read my article about the consequences of the closing: Circles of Pain around Vermont Yankee Closing. 

Photo from the Phil Scott gubernatorial transition website

Goodbye to the Old Year

Some of my friends send me New Year Cards with the old Jewish saying:
Goodbye to the old year with all its curses: hello to the New Year with all its blessings.

A major blessing of the New Year is that Vermont's new Governor will be Governor Phil Scott.  I first heard of Phil Scott in 2010.  When Shumlin led the charge against Vermont Yankee in the Vermont Senate in 2010, then-Senator Scott was one of the four senators that voted to support the plant.  Twenty-six senators voted against, four voted for the plant.  Scott's vote was a profile in courage.  He urged the Senate to gather more information, and not just blindly charge to close the plant.

Here's the video of his remarks.




Governor Scott and A Party

And now, Scott will be Governor of Vermont!  Assuming the roads are clear, my husband and I are going to Governor Scott's inaugural ball next weekend. I don't  go to balls  and galas on a regular basis. However, until yesterday's deadline, anyone could buy a ticket.

In fairness to soon-to-be ex-Governor Shumlin, you could also buy a ticket to Shumlin's inaugural ball at the Sugarbush Ski Resort. Mary Powell, CEO of Green Mountain Power, was a major fundraiser for that ball.  I believe the ball was rather lavish.  Here's an older article that I wrote about the close ties between Shumlin and Green Mountain Power.  And here's an article in which Shay Totten wonders if it was just coincidence that Mary Powell raised $190,000 for the Governor's ball just before a Vermont agency needed to rule about a proposed Green Mountain Power wind farm. (Again in fairness, Shumlin's ball was a fundraiser for Vermont National Guard Charitable Foundation.)

Governor Scott's ball will be at a more modest venue: the Army Aviation Facility at the Burlington Airport.  Scott's ball will be a fundraiser for charities that support those who serve or have served in the military.  I plan to be there.

Vermont is not "better off without Vermont Yankee."  But Vermont will be better off without Peter Shumlin as Governor.  Hello, Governor Scott!

Cinco de Bye-O at Vermont Yankee

It's today

Well, today is the day.  About a hundred people will be laid off from Vermont Yankee, leaving a small staff of about 140 until such time as the fuel is moved into dry casks.  (See the Mike Faber article in Vermont Digger for a history of the layoffs.) This will take place several years from now, around 2020, I believe.  I think the fuel moving will be done by contractors, some of whom may be former Vermont Yankee employees.  For now, however, the plant will be close to its shut-down goal of Cold and Dark.

A Fine Little Plant

My Facebook feed includes many Vermont Yankee employees. Oddly, I see more happiness than sorrow in the posts on FB.  I realize that FB can be misleading, but still.  I see pride in the excellent little plant. I see gratitude for the good work and the good companions. I see Cinco de Bye-O parties.   I see humor. A bit of gallows humor, but still humor.  The comment: "Tomorrow is the last day my husband will be getting up at 5:30 to go to the plant" is followed by: "Hey, maybe I'll go in late. What are they gonna do? Get rid of me?"

As I said, I know Facebook can be misleading. Still, I think the mood is basically far more upbeat than depressed. There is so much pride in the plant, and in work well done, and so much love for the co-workers. It's amazing to me.  The mood is so different from the mood two years ago, when the "lists were up." The "lists" defined who would have one more year at Vermont Yankee, and who would have two years.  I called the post about that day: Paint It Black.  The day the "lists were up" was not covered in any local paper.  They weren't interested in the pain of the Vermont Yankee workers.

In contrast, no doubt, there will be stories and op-eds galore about today. I'm not looking forward to some of the op-eds that will be published, though I think I could write some of them myself. I suspect Governor Shumlin (he who recently tried to destroy emails that may show some serious issues) will make a statement. Once again, Shumlin will look forward to the bright renewable future that is just around the corner for Vermont.  As he has looked forward to it, so many times in the past.

(Enough about our current governor.  With any luck, Vermont will get a special prosecutor about those emails.  What goes around may yet come around. )

You Done Good

Governor Salmon making a statement in favor of VY
PSB hearing, November 2012

Many VY people will be laid off today.  But, as we saw in the video posted yesterday, many VY people are leaving Vermont. So why despair?  There are other places, and other jobs, far away from here.

Many don't have such jobs.  Some are being moved into retirement, whether they like it or not.  Still, overall the mood is good.

Why is the mood good?  It's because Vermont Yankee was a great plant, with great people.  People who worked there had reason to be proud of their work!  That makes a difference, even when the work ends.

As Governor Salmon wrote in December 2014: Governor Salmon praises 42 year of Vermont Yankee.  As George Clain, Past President of IBEW at Vermont Yankee wrote: Vermont Yankee Union President: You Done Good.  December 2014 is when Vermont Yankee went offline forever.

And I say:

Vermont Yankee, you done good for Vermont.  Thank you.  

You finished strong. 

May everyone in the Vermont Yankee family go from strength to strength in their lives.  

You finished strong and you will be strong.  

I hope your futures will be filled with happiness. 

The Pain of Closing Vermont Yankee: Post at Northwest Clean Energy

Pain from Closing Vermont Yankee Lingers was published Friday at Northwest Clean Energy, the blog of Energy Northwest.    Seven months after Vermont Yankee closed, I wrote this retrospective on "what has happened since."

This is what has happened after Vermont Yankee closed:

• more pollution
• more pain on the grid (gas-fired plants are being built as rapidly as possible)
• major economic pain for employees and for the area.

I went back to some of my 2010 posts, the ones where Governor Shumlin was predicting a "jobs bonanza" when the plant closed. I wrote about the Seabrook contracts today.  I wrote about the economic analyses done in 2010 and 2011, about how many jobs would be lost and how the economy would suffer. I wrote about what is happening now, and how today's situation was completely predictable.

Pain from Closing Vermont Yankee Lingers was a hard post to write.  It has extensive references and will be helpful to anyone who wants to get "the story" of Vermont Yankee.

I encourage you to read it and to comment.

The Economic Development Fund Won't Help Vermont Yankee People

Two Million Dollars in Development Funds Won't Help People from Vermont Yankee

In November, Nuclear Energy Institute asked me to write a guest post about the effects of the closing of Vermont Yankee. I wrote:

In Entergy's...."late-2013 agreement with the state...Entergy will send $2 million a year for five years (for a total of $10 million) to the state for economic development of the Windham County region.....Some workers at Vermont Yankee....are fairly cynical about this development funding. They don’t believe it will help laid-off employees. I agree with them. ...."

I was right.  The workers were right. This money will not help Vermont Yankee workers. In retrospect, this outcome was predictable.  And yes, part of the outcome is Governor Shumlin's fault. I hate to point fingers, but sometimes facts are facts.

A Timeline: We Start With the Money
In December of 2013, Entergy and the state of Vermont signed an agreement about the final months of the plant operation. Basically, Entergy agreed to pay millions of dollars to the state (and move fuel to dry casks quickly). In return, the Entergy would get a Certificate of Public Good to operate the plant until the end  of 2014.

In March 2014, the Public Service Board approved the agreement and granted the Certificate. Various money was on the table, but for the purposes of this post, we will only discuss some of it, specifically the economic development money. Entergy's agreement included $2 million a year, for five years, for economic development of Windham County.

In late March or early April 2014, the state received $2 million dollars from Entergy.  By May, the state was developing guidelines for proposals to disburse the funds. Here's a May article in the Brattleboro Reformer about guideline development.

The economic guidelines needed to resolve many controversies. Should for-profit businesses be allowed to compete for this money? Would there be a revolving loan fund for businesses? Finally, in late July, the state had its guidelines and it requested applications.   As Vermont Digger reported,  non profits could apply for grants, and businesses could apply for loans. Loan "repayments will remain in a revolving fund for Windham County in perpetuity."  All applications were due on September 23.

The proposals and the panel
The panel received about $6 million dollars worth of proposals for the $2 million dollars available. The town of Vernon worked hard on its proposal: it was especially hard-hit by the plant's closing.  In this video clip about Vermont Yankee closing, you can hear Patty O'Donnell, chairman of the Vernon Selectboard, speaking hopefully of Vernon's application for a grant to start a business incubator.

The Vermont Economic Progress Council, an eleven-member panel, served as the decision-maker about the economic grants.  This panel has nine members appointed by the governor, and two members appointed by the legislature. Only two panel members come from Windham County, a fact noted by the Brattleboro Reformer in an editorial. The Reformer thought that more local representation might have been a good thing.

The panel recommends
Around Thanksgiving, the panel made its recommendations.  These were recommendations to Governor Peter Shumlin.  Shumlin would make the final decision.

Governor Shumlin

Note: Weirdly, in this state, "Governor Shumlin will make the final decision" doesn't surprise anybody. I have lived in many states, and in general, agency panels make decisions on funding. They put out a request for proposals, then they choose the proposals they want to fund.  Sometimes the governor must approve, but rarely is the situation described as the Governor making the final decision.

Vermont Digger wrote a report on the panel's recommendations.  The panel only planned to award $1.7 million in funding, and none of that was to the town of Vernon. That town's proposal didn't even make the first cut.

Governor Shumlin Decides
Governor Shumlin did not find all $1.7 million dollars worth of projects worthy of
funding.  As a matter of fact, he only plans to fund $800,000 dollars worth of projects.  Vermont Digger described the projects in its article: The State Slows Windham County Economic Development Program.  

The funded projects included $79,000 for the "Strolling of the Heifers" business plan competition.  Now, far be it from me to disrespect the "Strolling of the Heifers," a fine parade in Brattleboro. The Heifers organization is also involved in many locavore, farm-to-table projects.  Still, I don't understand why the Vernon business incubator made no headway with the committee, but the Heifers will be awarded funding for their business competition.  It's almost like saying: we are not interested in what happens to the people in Vernon.  (I am a blogger.  I have opinions.)

Well, that's my opinion of the outcome.  Governor Shumlin's opinion is that Vermont has to revamp the application process to get better proposals next year.

One businessman commented in Vermont Digger, claiming that the process was insulting. He doesn't think the business community is going to try again for next year's funds. A commentator on a Vermont Public Radio article said that the process puts Shumlin in an overly regal  role. 

Opinions certainly vary.

So It Goes
After an entire summer of workshops and excitement about grant applications for the Entergy money, the result can be most honestly described as a fizzle. Most of the money wasn't even awarded. Governor Shumlin was disappointed that the received proposals  were not "transformational" enough. Was he really disappointed, or did he just want to emphasize that the final decision is in his hands alone?  Who knows? Probably a little of both ideas.

Skeptics at Vermont Yankee thought the Entergy economic development money, once it was given to the state, was unlikely to be used to help Vermont Yankee workers.

The bottom line is that the Vermont Yankee skeptics were correct.

Alas.

Energy and the Vermont Election

Recently, I was asked my opinion about how the Vermont election results would (or would not ) change Vermont Energy policy. I wrote a lengthy email, which has now morphed into this blog post.

Bottom line: despite Governor Shumlin's squeaker (probable) victory, not much will change,

----------

Scott Milne

The election

Over here in Vermont, we don't actually have a newly-elected governor.  The race was very tight, and in these cases, our constitution says that the legislature votes for Governor.  Governor Shumlin had a razor-thin margin over Republican challenger Scott Milne, but the legislature will decide.  If the Libertarian vote was combined with the Republican vote, Shumlin would have lost, but that is not very relevant.  Governor Shumlin says he is "personally humbled" by the election results.

Our legislature will decide.  Despite gains by the Republicans, our legislature has a heavy majority of Democratic/Progressive members, and so we can assume that our current Governor, Governor Shumlin, will be re-elected when the legislature convenes in January. Milne has not conceded victory.

In other words, Vermont's energy policy is unlikely to change very much on the basis of this election. The majority leader of the Vermont House is resigning, but I doubt if any relevant committee chairs will change.

The gas pipeline

The Governor (and others of his party) must be aware that he lost votes by supporting the Addison gas pipeline extension.  That awareness probably will not stop the pipeline, but it may affect Vermont energy policy going forward.  Also, Green Mountain Power is buying a great deal of its power from the grid, and its Hydro-Quebec contracts are "market-follow."  So I expect electricity price rises in Vermont, starting in January.  However, this has nothing to do with the elections: the purchase agreements are already in place.

The Governor's race in Vermont was very tight, but we can expect Governor Shumlin to be re-elected by the legislature when it comes into session in January.  (Such an election is required by Vermont's constitution in situations where neither candidate has over 50% of the votes.) This means that Vermont energy policy is unlikely to change very much.  However, Shumlin supported the Addison gas pipeline extension.  His tight race may have taught local politicians that if they support gas pipeline extensions,  they themselves will lose supporters.  This could have an effect on Vermont energy policy in the future.

Many pundits seem to agree, however, that energy policy was not the deciding factor in this election.  Issues included that Governor Shumlin never explained how he was going to fund Single Payer health care. Also, his attempt to buy land super-cheap from an impoverished neighbor led to doubts about his personal integrity.

Electricity

Governor Shumlin

Other factors, not dependent on this election, will have the major effects on Vermont electricity

Vermont Yankee will close down in December, and it produces about 70% of the electricity that is produced within the state.  This may affect Vermont power costs or reliability. Even though Vermont utilities did not explicitly purchase Vermont Yankee power, the power was very available on the local grid and was part of the  "grid power" that they bought.   Now much more power will have to be imported.

Vermont utilities have some PPA power, such as 60 MW fixed-price Seabrook power. However, much of their power (market purchased power, Hydro-Quebec "market--follow" contracts) follow the prices on the grid. Therefore, in general, we can expect Vermont electricity prices to rise and be closer to parity with the prices of other New England states.

Also, some New England states no longer buy RECs (renewable energy certificates) from Vermont. Inability to sell RECs may accelerate Vermont's electricity price rise, because less out-of-state money will be flowing to our local utilities.

In short, the election itself will have few immediate effects.  Yet we can expect long-reaching changes  to electricity costs in Vermont.

A Year Ago: The Announcement Considered

Fountain of Time Sculpture, Chicago
Photo from Wikipedia

Looking Backward

On August 27, 2013, Entergy announced that Vermont Yankee would close at the end of its 2014 fuel cycle, basically, at the end of this year.

Two days after the announcement, I wrote a blog post Questions I Frequently Ask Myself about Vermont Yankee Closure.  A few months later, in January, Entergy announced who would be laid off after fuel was offloaded (early 2015) and who would remain on for perhaps another year of decommissioning.  I wrote a blog post about that, also: Paint It Black.

Time Stays, We Go

A large, beautiful and depressing sculpture stands near the University of Chicago: The Fountain Of Time,  by Lorado Taft.  A hundred people pass before Father Time, who stands unmoved by the procession.   The sculpture is based on a poem with the repeated lines:

Time goes, you say?- ah no! 
Alas, Time stays,- we go!

With that in mind, exactly what has gone on during this year?

Agreements Happened

After a fair number of insults being levied at Entergy,  Entergy and state agencies reached an agreement that if Entergy paid certain amounts of money (about $40 million) and said they would move fuel into dry casks expeditiously and so forth...the state would stand WITH Entergy before the Public Service Board. The state would ask the Board to give Entergy a Certificate of Public Good (CPG) to operate through the end of this year.

And so, with millions of dollars riding on the signatures,  Entergy and the state agencies signed the agreement in December 2013. With this agreement, the state would argue FOR Entergy in front of the Public Service Board.

However, the agreement would be null and void if the Public Service Board didn't adopt it by late March.  And so March came, and the Public Service Board issued the CPG through the end of the year, The Board also made several snarky and unnecessary statements, claiming that if Entergy had wanted a 20-year CPG, it  probably would not have received one.

(By the way, agreements happened but love didn't.   People at the plant told me that Governor Shumlin has never visited the plant after the closing was announced. He never even visited Vernon.)

Money Happened

Entergy tax money happened: Entergy delivered its various taxes, Clean Energy Development fund money, and so forth right on  the schedule from the agreement.  The majority of the money went to state agencies, but $2 million dollars (for this year) was earmarked for economic development of Windham County. I really need to write a blog post about that $2 million.  The agency in charge of the funds has noted that guidelines have been released (as of August 1) but there is still confusion about the process for awarding the grants and loans.

Furthermore, some people say that there aren't enough really good proposals for the money.  Other people say: "Yeah, what did you expect? There's been all types of incentive programs for this area of Vermont for a long time...if there were good ideas, we probably would have heard them already."

When I write a blog post about this, it's going to be a long one!

Entergy Profits and Revenue Sharing happened:  Over $17 million dollars.  That's the check that Entergy wrote to Vermont utilities as "revenue sharing" according to the agreement under which it purchased the plant in 2002.  My April blog post on this: Green Mountain Power Receives $17 Million in Revenue sharing

Well, that was April and this is September.  Green Mountain Power (Gaz Metro) had the money, but it had to have a rate case before Public Service Board before it could do anything with the money. So it has had its rate hearing. Gaz Metro will be lowering people's electric bills with the money.  But not all at once, for Pete's sake. That would be terrible!  If electric bills were lowered for only one year and then popped up again, they would have to admit that the reason for the decrease was Vermont Yankee money! So Gaz Metro isn't  going to do that.

Electric bills will be lowered for about three years, just a little bit each year.  This will keep people from noticing (probably) the effect on their pocketbooks from Vermont Yankee's closing.  Some of the recent newspaper stories mention the Entergy money, some just trumpet the rate decrease, without mentioning Entergy.

Looking Forward

I have a number of friends at the plant, and to me, the real news is that they are announcing their new gigs on Facebook.  They are going to other Entergy plants ("See you there soon!" they write each other.)  They are going to non-Entergy plants ("It's going to be a great change, we LOVE the area!" they write each other.)

Vermont will stagger forward, with local non-profits fighting over the Entergy money.  Most young Vermont Yankee workers are moving on.

Forward is the future.  Vermont is the past.

The Ironies of Ice Cream

Softserve ice cream
Wikimedia

Summertime Ice Cream

In my area, in the summer, there are suddenly lots of little places selling ice cream.  Soft ice cream is the most popular, but there's plenty of hard ice cream available also.  In the summer, I prefer softserve ice cream.  It's a treat I can't get during the rest of the year.

I mean, I can always buy excellent hard ice cream at the grocery store. But you just can't beat the ice-cream experience of having a soft-serve cone while sitting outside on a summer day.  My local place (Newt's Ice Cream) is  the same place that my neighbors go.  Therefore, a trip for ice cream can also be a chance for a chat.

Vermont's iconic ice cream is a hard ice cream: Ben & Jerry's.  According to the Ben & Jerry's website,  their "Cherry Garcia" ice cream even has a street named after it in Burlington Vermont.  I can understand that.  Cherry Garcia is my favorite hard ice cream.

Unilever and me

Though I love Cherry Garcia ice cream,  Ben & Jerry's is not my favorite Vermont business.  It's among my least favorite, really.

A few years ago,  I attempted to debate Duane Peterson about Vermont Yankee.  Peterson is the former major-domo (his title was "Chief of Stuff") for Ben and Jerry's.  The company is part of "Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility," a group of businesses that support Governor Shumlin and supported the state's attempts to shut down Vermont Yankee. 

In my encounter with Peterson, he distinguished himself by refusing to debate me at a school assembly: he insisted on a giving a separate speech. When he did speak to the students, he made fun of Entergy as a "Southern" company. He imitated a Southern accent, to get laughs.  In my opinion, he behaved in a way that was both cowardly and prejudiced.  But hey...I didn't actually chat with the guy.  He might be an absolutely terrific human being.

Okay.  I know what I think of Peterson.  But I don't know what to think of Ben & Jerry's ice cream.  They joined a business group fighting Vermont Yankee.  On the other hand, despite the word "Vermont" all over their advertising, Ben & Jerry's is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Unilever, a Dutch-British company. It has been a subsidiary since 2000.

At this point, Unilever has continued to encourage the Vermont company's social activism.  I believe they do so because quirkiness (for example, "chief of stuff") and "Vermont social responsibility" are important parts of the Ben & Jerry's brand identity.  Still, Unilever is a multi-national company, like many other such companies, and it's not worth getting too exercised about their policies.

Hard Facts on Hard Ice Cream

Hard Ice Cream

My son-in-law Vijay and I were sitting companionably at Newt's earlier this summer, and we were talking about ice cream. I was having a softserve ice cream and he was having a hard ice cream.  Vijay is from India.

He told me that he hadn't realized there was such a thing as "hard ice cream" until he came to America.  He had enjoyed a lot of soft ice cream as a boy, but hard ice cream was not something he had encountered.

So we talked about this.  For soft ice cream, you need an ice cream machine, but not much other infrastructure.  You make the ice cream where people are planning to eat it.  Hard ice cream is a different story.  You make it a factory,  and then you put it in a freezer truck which keeps the ice cream cold and delivers it to a store.  Then, at the store, it is put into a big freezer.  At the store, someone buys the pint of Cherry Garcia and takes it home.  At home, conveniently enough, there's another freezer, waiting happily for some pints of ice cream to arrive.   You need a lot of freezers to deliver a pint of hard ice cream.

In short, hard ice cream is a very energy-intensive food, at least compared to soft ice cream.

Irony, Ice Cream, and Energy

It surprises me that the local makers of hard ice cream have campaigned against the green inexpensive power supplied by Vermont Yankee.   What were they thinking?

Well, okay.  They weren't thinking about their product itself. They were building a "socially-conscious" brand.  But I'm socially conscious, too!  I have a new idea for how we might save energy in the future.  We should all give up hard ice cream.

Bye-bye, Cherry Garcia!

Tritium: An example of Unreasoning ALARA

Unreasoning ALARA: The need for examples

In Protecting Against Nothing: The Failings of ALARA, I described the ALARA strategy (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) for radiation safety.  This strategy is based upon the idea that there is no safe level of radiation, so radiation protection must constantly attempt to "do better."   The words "reasonably achievable" can be interpreted in unreasonable and expensive ways.

In contrast, protection from contaminants in drinking water is regulated on the basis of drinking water standards: concentrations of harmful substances are kept lower than agreed-upon values.  This is a better and more cost-effective strategy than the ever-more-expensive strategy of ALARA.

I would like to give some examples here. The need for examples was raised (in rather insulting phrasing) in a comment on an earlier post by Howard Shaffer. This is my understanding of what the questioner actually meant to ask:

"You have explained how ' reasonably' achievable could be misused in a regulatory context.  But can you give examples of where ALARA has actually been misused, examples of where excessive radiation protection measures have led to unnecessary costs? I want examples of the supposed excess costs of ALARA in terms of day-to-day operations. This isn't a question about accident prevention costs."

In a few posts, I will describe examples of the unreasonable costs of ALARA at Vermont Yankee.  These are cases in which Vermont Yankee had to go to great expense about radiation protection or paying for elaborate radiation measurements---for trivial amounts of radiation. The levels of radiation had no possible public health consequences.

Today's example: tritium.

Tritium and the Zero-Discharge Plant

Vermont Yankee is a zero-discharge plant.  No tritium must leave the plant boundaries. Why is this?  There is nothing wrong with small discharges of tritium. Canadian plants legally release thousands of curies of tritium per year.

So, Vermont Yankee had a leak in a pipe. The pipe was in a concrete conduit, but eventually, some tritium found its way out of the conduit and into the soil and water.

The small leak was a huge problem for the plant. It cost the plant a great deal of trouble and expense to find, fix and "remediate" this leak, even though the leak released less than a curie of tritium. Meanwhile, the plant gathered a great deal of negative publicity for having had the leak.

In contrast, exit signs containing about ten curies of tritium can be shipped through the mail (or at least they could be at the time that Howard Shaffer bought his tritium sign about three years ago).

In further contrast, Canadian plants are allowed to discharge thousands of curies of tritium per year.  There are no health effects in Canada from these discharges.

Though I posted extensively on tritium, Rod Adams has the best post on the subject. 

http://atomicinsights.com/how-much-tritium-leaked-from-vermont-yankee-before-the-leak-was-stopped/

Adams compares the Vermont Yankee leak with the tritium levels just north of the border.  Vermont Yankee's leak was less than one curie of tritium, while Canadian plants routinely discharge over 5000 curies of tritium a year.

Remediation 

Vermont Yankee found and fixed the leak within a few weeks.

Then,  Vermont Yankee began "remediation."  They pumped groundwater and disposed of it as radiologically contaminated. By doing so, they captured most of the tritium.

Meanwhile, famous hydrological engineers (such as Governor Shumlin) asked Vermont Yankee to pump even more groundwater, for further safety.  Vermont Yankee agreed to pump more.  I don't know how much they spent on pumping, but I suspect the amount was non-trivial.

All for less tritium than is held by a single exit sign.

ALARA Plumbs Some New Depths

As low as reasonably achievable reached some new depths with the great Vermont Yankee tritium scare story.  Of course, a plant should fix a leak if it has one.  Even if nothing but super-pure water is leaking, you fix leaks.  But the remediation?  All the pumping? Large amounts of money and time were devoted to protecting the public from---trivial amounts of radioactivity.

It is often thus with ALARA.  More to follow.

No New Transmission Lines for Vermont! Vermont Government Reacts to Vermont Yankee Closing

Update: Governor Shumlin Reverses Position Again

In mid-June, Governor Shumlin spoke with utility regulators and "tapped the brakes" on the idea of a rapid build-out of gas pipelines and electric transmission lines. According to an article by John Herrick in Vermont Digger, Shumlin said this infrastructure might become obsolete, and new technologies could lessen the need to transmit large amounts of power.

However, in late June, Shumlin reversed his position. On June 20, a panel of energy experts representing the governors of all the New England states met: the meeting was reported by Deborah McDermott of Seacoast Online.  In this meeting, the panelists agreed to ask for a "tariff" (tax) on electricity. The tariff would be used to finance natural gas pipelines and electricity transmission lines.

The state-appointed panelists stepped on the gas for an infrastructure buildout.

As the energy panelists said--something has to give in New England.

It Was Winter 

Once upon a time (earlier this year, actually) a polar vortex came to call in New England.  Sub-zero temperatures  meant that great quantities of natural gas were used for heating homes. Therefore, not enough natural gas was available for gas-fired power plants.  Oil and jet fuel were called into service to provide electricity, and prices on the grid soared. As many news reports noted at the time, there are not enough natural gas pipelines into the Northeast.

Governor Shumlin in January: We need new energy projects

On January 21, all six governors of New England got together as part of the New England States Committee on Electricity to address the pipeline problem.  The governors signed an agreement requesting ISO-NE to support in the development and filing of any tariff changes [fees to users] for two purposes.

In the first purpose, these fees would enable new transmission lines to be built. The lines would bring between 1200 and 3600 MW of low carbon power into the New England electrical systems.  Translation: we will build new power lines to get electricity from Hydro Quebec.

In the second purpose, governors also requested a fee on electricity for the purpose of building new pipeline capacity  to bring natural gas to the area.  The idea is that consumers should pay more for electricity now, in order to build gas pipelines as soon as possible.

Note: Governor Shumlin signed this agreement with these requests.

And Now It's Summer

Meanwhile, the seasons have changed. Peonies bloom, fireflies blink in the twilight, and Vermonters protest energy projects. Pipeline opponents are concerned that an already-planned gas pipeline will carry fracked gas. They also worry about water contamination. They are protesting, chaining themselves to the doors of the gas company, and so forth. One protester was arrested for alleged assault.

Fireflies in Germany

People in Vermont do not like this pipeline. Their reaction doesn't look good for building even more pipelines in Vermont.

But what about transmission lines?  This situation is more confusing because several lines have been proposed. John Herrick of Vermont Digger wrote a comprehensive report in early June: Vermont Smack in the Middle of Crucial Electricity Supply and Demand. As you can see in the report, Vermont seems to be in favor of at least some of these transmission lines, as long as enough goodies are attached. A quote from the Herrick report:

[TDI] wants to bury a 150-mile transmission line under Lake Champlain. TDI, a subsidiary of Blackstone Group, a financial services firm, has lined up private capital for the estimated $1.2 billion project.....TDI says it would also donate tens of millions of dollars to the state for costly Lake Champlain cleanup – or whatever the state decides is best.

Gee, that sounds familiar. "Donate tens of millions of dollars..."

Governor Shumlin in June: Let's Slow Down the Infrastructure Build-Out

As reported by John Herrick in Vermont Digger, Governor Shumlin spoke to utility regulators in early June.  Shumlin "tapped the brakes" on the build-out.  He said that we don't know that "with the evolutions of technology and the local, distributed generation of power...(we may end up) paying for huge stranded costs if we build tons and tons of delivery." Shumlin spoke of the evolution of cell phones. In parallel with cell phones, Shumlin claimed that "new technologies could soon lessen the need to transmit large amounts of power from faraway areas."

Brayton Point

Well, not really. Let's look at the power situation in the Northeast. In Vermont, Vermont Yankee is shutting down.  In Massachusetts, three major coal plants (Salem Harbor, Brayton Point, and Mt. Tom) will close in the next few years, some in the next few months.The grid operator said that Brayton Point was a "must-run" facility. The plant owners answered: "Too bad, we are closing it anyway in 2017."

In short, without "power from faraway areas," the grid around here could get seriously unreliable. We will need transmission lines.

Dumb? Or Smart?

Some of my friends have looked at the Governor's statement and concluded that the man is simply dumb about energy.  He doesn't want power plants, and he doesn't want transmission lines. Yes, this is the man who said that Germany  got 30% of its juice from solar, and that a nuclear plant must be kept running with mostly full staff for years after shutdown.

Shumlin has proven that he is no genius on energy matters.

Governor Shumlin

However, Shumlin is very smart about politics and negotiations.  His recent statements can best be understood as part of a negotiation with anyone who would build any infrastructure in Vermont.  If you build it, you must pay us!

Shumlin has surely noticed that without Vermont Yankee, there will be no easy source for new funds in the Clean Energy Development Fund. I think he has decided to tax the new infrastructure: in other word, tax whatever replaces Vermont Yankee.

When Shumlin makes a speech against the infrastructure development, he becomes better able to get concessions (money) from the infrastructure developers. Shumlin has shown that he can be a formidable enemy to an energy project.  As one person on Facebook wrote: "He's got Vermont Yankee's head on his wall now."  If a project doesn't want him as an enemy, the project owners will probably pay what he wants them to pay.

In my opinion, Shumlin is not dumb. He's smart like a fox.

As a blogger, I plan to have the last word here:

Foxes are smart for themselves.  They are not known for their public-spirited actions.  Ultimately, the ratepayers will bear the costs of Shumlin's way of being-smart.

IBM, Vermont Yankee and Shumlin: A Trip Down Memory Lane

Silicon Wafers

Wafer Fab facility for sale

The IBM wafer fab facility in Essex Junction employs approximately 4000 people, making it the largest private employer in the state.  It has been going through hard times, including laying off 400 people last year, and another 100 or so this year.

It is widely known that IBM wants to get out of the wafer fab business, and indeed, it has announced that its fab facilities are for sale. Earlier this month, an industry newsletter described the negotiations about selling the various IBM fab facilities: apparently Global Foundries is the front-runner.

Whatever new company buys the Essex Junction plant, it is unclear whether they will choose to keep it running or shutter it. The equipment is out of date, but not every type of chip needs to be made on the latest version of chip-making equipment.  The industry newsletter (referenced above) has a fairly long and complex essay on this subject.

In any case, the further operation of the Vermont IBM plant is certainly at risk.

Vermont to the Rescue?

In reporting on IBM's announcement of the latest round of layoffs in Vermont and elsewhere, Vermont Digger reported that Governor Cuomo of New York has struck a deal with IBM. IBM will add jobs in Buffalo and maintain jobs in the Hudson Valley.

In mid-April, Governor Shumlin announced a $4.5 million incentive fund: this fund will be used to induce a company to stay in Vermont.  When asked if IBM was the target recipient, Shumlin replied that: "I have read the same information that you have in the press about IBM."

The Vermont Digger article about this incentive plan is  IBM Candidate for Proposed $4.5 Million  Incentive. It has a vigorous comment stream.  Many comments point out that the multi-billion dollar sale of wafer fab assets will not be influenced by this relatively small sum from the state of Vermont.  I encourage you to read the comment stream.

Shumlin and IBM: Shumlin accused them of lying

A few years ago, IBM was concerned that fees assessed on Vermont Yankee would raise overall  electricity bills significantly. This would make it hard for the IBM plant to compete.  At that point, Shumlin had no compassion for the IBM plant, and no million-dollar incentives were forthcoming. Indeed, Shumlin accused the IBM lobbyist of lying.

In 2008, Shumlin was President Pro Tempore of the Vermont Senate.  The Senate was passing a bill saying that any company buying Vermont Yankee had to put up a line of credit of $300 million for decommissioning.  VPR reported:  Yankee decommissioning bill prompted political spat. 

John O'Kane, a lobbyist for IBM, objected to this plan. O'Kane said the decommissioning money was there already, and it was growing. If the state asked for more money, this would raise electricity rates for Vermonters.  Here's a quote from the VPR article:


O'Kane "Money has time value, and you're changing the time..
Shumlin: "We are not asking for the money. You're lying about that. We are not asking for the money.

Governor Peter Shumlin

The bill says..."
O'Kane: "Peter, that is.. You just called me a liar.."
Shumlin: "I said you're not telling the truth about that, John."
O'Kane: "You called me a liar. That is unacceptable. You're the president of the Senate, and you're calling me, a representative of the largest employer..."

Eventually, Governor Jim Douglas smoothed most of this over. You can read more in the VPR article.

IBM Should Build a Power Plant

The question remained, however--IBM cannot pay higher prices for electricity, so what should be done?  In 2011, about three years after Shumlin called the IBM lobbyist a liar, the economic development committee of the Vermont Senate visited IBM.  The WCAX story IBM Warns Lawmakers about the loss of Vt. Yankee describes this meeting.  Some quotes from that article:

IBM pays about $35 million a year to power its Vermont facility. And the company estimates those costs will go up by 25 percent if Vermont Yankee goes off line....

(Senator) Illuzzi wants to explore the idea of a combined heating and power plant created on IBM's campus as a way for the company to address its power needs.....

"I don't want to own and IBM doesn't want to own a power plant," Bombardier said. "We don't want to run a power plant; we want to invest in semiconductors-- we don't want to invest in power generation source."

In other words, Vermont suggested that IBM just build its own power plant.  IBM replied that it wasn't in the power plant business.  It was in the semi-conductor business.


It Probably Didn't Matter

Considering the economy, it probably didn't matter much that Shumlin insulted an IBM spokesman and that Vermont legislators suggested that the company build its own power plant.  So I don't want to refine too much on the reason IBM is selling its facilities.

But still.  How will the new owners look at this history?  Will $4.5 million make them eager to stay in Vermont?

End note: A blog post of mine on this subject from 2011. The post includes more references and is also a bit snarky.  Some notes on IBM and Yankee: How I found Vermont's Energy Plan.

The Fuel Pools: Opponents Say the Darndest Things!

Attorney General Sorrell

My View of an Opponent Statement

Statement: We're gonna sue you if you use the wrong money to address our safety concerns!

Actual Statement: Attorney General Bill Sorrell said:

If Entergy elects to remove money from the fund, Sorrell said the state will take legal action.

"The fund" is the Vermont Yankee decommissioning fund.   Here's the longer quote with Sorrell's statement. This quote is from John Herrick's report in Vermont Digger-- Special Report: Despite Recent Agreement, State and Entergy Remain at Odds Over Funding for Dismantling Vermont Yankee

Entergy wants to tap the fund to move some of the roughly 3,000 total fuel assemblies at the Vernon plant from its cooling pool and into dry cask storage, a process known as spent fuel management.
Meanwhile, the state wants the fund reserved to tear down the plant.
Ultimately, the state and Entergy “agreed to disagree” on the matter.
Vermont Attorney General Bill Sorrell, who helped to negotiate the agreement, said if Entergy taps the fund, the company could mothball the plant for 60 years, a process referred to as SAFSTOR — the worst-case scenario for Vermont officials.
If Entergy elects to remove money from the fund, Sorrell said the state will take legal action.
“The stakes are very significant,” Sorrell said in an interview. "Vermont is going to want a place — a legal opportunity to be heard on those requests in the future. So stay tuned."

Fuel Pool in France
Fuel assemblies
from many nuclear
plants
Courtesy AREVA

My Comment:

As you can see by the comment stream on the Herrick article, one of the great concerns of nuclear opponents is that spent fuel stored in fuel pools is very dangerous.  Look at Fukushima!  Oh...right, nothing happened to the fuel in the pools at Fukushima.  Well, anyhow...

Opponent comment streams have been steady on the subject that Entergy had better move that fuel quickly to save us all from danger.

But, as you can see, moving the fuel quickly is not the main goal of our state government.  No, if Entergy uses the decommissioning funds to move fuel quickly, the state will sue them.

Let's set aside the fact that decommissioning funds are usually used for fuel management. Let's set aside the fact that such fuel-moving costs may well be reimbursed by the federal government.

Dry Cask Storage
Courtesy NRC

Let's just look at the fact that the state government doesn't see moving fuel as a high priority, compared to keeping the money in the decommissioning fund in order to tear down buildings. The state is threatening to sue if Entergy doesn't use money from somewhere besides the decommissioning fund in order to perform certain decommissioning activities.

It would be moderately amusing to watch the state, once again, try to tell the NRC what to do about nuclear safety or use of decommissioning funds. These recent threats of lawsuits show that the state has not learned any lessons about pre-emption.

Furthermore,  it seems to me that punishing Entergy for running a power plant in this state is very important to Governor Shumlin. It seems more important to him to punish Entergy than to have Entergy take an action (move fuel to dry casks) which many of Shumlin's supporters believe would increase their safety.

So AG Sorrell is going sue if Entergy gets NRC permission to use the decomm fund to move fuel, and then moves it?  On what exact grounds is he going to sue?  Is he going to argue it right up to the Supreme Court?

Wow.  Opponents say the darndest things.

Decommissioning, Governor Shumlin, and Dry Cask Storage

Did I Write "Patronizing Bunk"?

I wrote an op-ed about the state's agreement with Entergy about decommissioning. I published it on this blog, and it was also published on Vermont Digger. On Vermont Digger, the title was Entergy Settlement Before the PSB is Good for the State. It had a lively comment stream on Vermont Digger.

Governor Peter Shumlin

In this op-ed I wrote:

However, in the course of the negotiations, I suspect the state learned some facts about  decommissioning.

Two anti-nuclear commentators called my statement: "patronizing bunk." They claimed that the state was well-versed in decommissioning from the start.  The state didn't have to learn anything.

Well, I begged to differ.

Here is part of the answer I posted, with slight edits.

About Patronizing

I was not simply being patronizing. When I wrote: “the state learned something about decommissioning,” you thought I was referring to the DPS (Department of Public Service). Actually, I was referring to Governor Shumlin. I was not clear, which was my fault. But then again, I tend to use locutions like “the state” to avoid finger-pointing at individuals.

Perhaps, instead of being vaguely snarky, I should be more direct, even if it turns out a bit more pointed at one man. Frankly, this would have been uncomfortable for me to write originally, but I am writing it to show what I was thinking about.

Below, I have written something more accurate, more pointed, and with references. Perhaps I should have written the material below, instead.

About Governor Shumlin

What I should have written:

And, it looks like over the years, Governor Shumlin himself is learning something about decommissioning. Here’s one of his press conferences from 2011:

http://vtdigger.org/2011/03/03/govs-presser-on-video-shumlin-praises-school-boards-rails-at-gop-and-entergy/

The title includes SHUMLIN SAYS SAFSTOR WASN’T PART OF DEAL WITH ENTERGY. The article includes Governor Shumlin arguing with reporters who quote the MOU at him. It’s kind of funny, if it weren’t sad.

From the same press conference, but this time a direct quote from Shumlin:

http://truenorthreports.com/shumlin-talks-about-uvm-vermont-yankee-and-taxes

“The jobs gap doesn’t really happen for about 16 years,” he said. “Five to six years for the plant to cool down, gotta keep all the systems running, that requires a number of employees, several hundred. And ten years of decommissioning. So the jobs cliff, despite what they tell you in those 30 second advertisements, is not as significant as long as they keep their promise on decommissioning the plant whenever it shuts down.”

The Governor is Learning

Recently, the Governor has had to eat his words and acknowledge SAFSTOR is allowed. He has had to acknowledge that the plant will not keep running for five or six years with several hundred employees. It is nobody’s fault but his own that he said these absurd things at a press conference. Nobody forced him to make such a fool of himself.

You gotta give the man credit, though, Shumlin is learning. Maybe the learning didn’t happen at the negotiations, maybe it did. Maybe it happened before. I should not have said “when” it happened, because I don’t know. But he’s gone from myth-based “hundreds of people for five-six years” to “everything will be in dry casks within seven years.” He has more of a grasp of reality now. I don’t know and should not have said exactly when he learned these things. But he is learning.

I want to say something though about his advisers. Where were they? Surely someone could have told him the facts of life about the M O U and what happens during decommissioning. Apparently, nobody did. People just let him go out there and say a bunch of things that simply are not true. He is learning, for sure. Are his advisers learning?"

Updated: The Dry Casks.  Vermont Digger Special Report on Decommissioning

I wrote a draft of this a few days ago, but I didn't post it because I was busy with our daughter's book launch.

Yesterday, Vermont Digger published a special report on remaining areas of disagreement between Vermont Yankee and the state agencies in Vermont.  John Herrick wrote Despite Recent Agreement, State and Entergy Remain at Odds Over Funding for Dismantling Vermont Yankee. 

According to this article, the state is concerned that Entergy may use decommissioning funds to move used fuel from the fuel pool to dry casks.  Attorney General Sorrell says that If Entergy elects to remove money from the fund, Sorrell said the state will take legal action.  Mr. Sorrell apparently thinks that moving fuel  to dry casks is not part of decommissioning: the state wants the decommissioning fund reserved for "tearing down the plant."

Umm...last I looked, only the NRC could say what a decommissioning fund can or cannot be used for.

Sigh. I thought the state had learned that the federal government, not the state, is responsible for regulating decommissioning and nuclear safety.  Oh well.  

Maybe they are not learning as fast as I thought they were learning.

Updated: Breaking News: State and Vermont Yankee Make a Deal

The Deal

The State and Vermont Yankee have a deal about closing Vermont Yankee, announced this afternoon. I have read the breaking news report at WPTZ, and watched Shumlin's press conference as described in  Vermont Digger and embedded below.  Thank you to Digger for posting the conference so quickly!

The deal seems to have hard-edged parts (yes, I understand what's happening) and soft-edged parts (hmmm, open to interpretation here).  I share my opinions below, but I also share the press conference video, so you can form your own opinions.

Hard-edged parts of the deal:

1. Entergy will file a decommissioning plan with the NRC in about a year, although it can legally take up to four years to do so. This plan will include an estimate of the total costs of decommissioning.
2. Entergy will pay $2 million dollars a year for the next five years, some of which will go into the Clean Energy Development fund, and some of which will go into helping displaced workers in Windham County (or at least, something about Windham County--unclear).
3. Entergy will put another $25 million dollars into the decommissioning fund.
4. Entergy will attempt (it can't promise) to move all fuel into dry casks within about seven years. 
5. When the money in the decommissioning fund has grown to the level needed for decommissioning (see #1 above), Entergy will start decommissioning activities within three months. It will not just keep the plant in SAFSTOR for sixty years or so.
6. The state and Entergy drop all lawsuits against each other.

Update: According to the Brattleboro Reformer, "lawsuits are over" does not apply to the generation tax lawsuit which will be heard in Vermont Supreme Court.

http://www.reformer.com/ci_24783693/entergy-and-state-reach-grand-bargain

Second Update: An article in my local paper seems to have a different take on the generation tax--that Entergy will pay the tax-to-date and the state won't expect the tax going forward?  I am sorry, but we will have to wait till after the holidays to get this straight.  Here is the article, originally from the Rutland Herald, but it may be behind a paywall.
http://www.vnews.com/news/state/region/9934425-95/shumlin-vt-yankee-reach-deal

Soft-edged parts of the deal:

1. Entergy agrees that it will "Greenfield" the plant. Actually, Entergy agreed to this in the memorandum of understanding when it bought the plant in 2002. "Greenfielding" means site remediation beyond what the NRC requires for decommissioning.  However, what does greenfielding mean in practice?  Level and reseed the ground? Entergy had always agreed to do that.  Or  does it mean "dig up every foundation to a depth of 40 feet, at great trouble and expense"? Entergy has never agreed to that.
2. Who is agreeing here? I mean, I think it is great to see Governor Shumlin up there explaining the deal, but what about the PSB? Will they be willing to agree to this?  Will they be annoyed that their quasi-judicial process isn't processing?
3. Who is not-suing here?  I can practically hear the howls of "Shumlin betrayed us" from the intervenors.  I suspect more lawsuits will come from that direction.
4. Did the state promise "no clever new taxes on the plant or fuel"?  If they did, I didn't see it in the press conference.  

My Current Opinion:

It seems to me a good-enough agreement.

1. Entergy didn't promise anything it can't perform (such as promising to decommission within ten years or something like that).  
2. Entergy supplied enough Danegeld to allow Shumlin to tell his supporters he made a great deal for the people of Vermont, so he doesn't lose face and he may abide by the agreement.  
3. But Entergy didn't provide too much Danegeld.  After all, the state wanted $12 million a year to make up for the generation tax, though they knew they couldn't actually obtain that amount.

I am sure we will hear more about this, and I bet some intervenors are getting their legal briefs ready, even as I post this.

Meanwhile, the press conference that announced the deal:

The Formal Negotiations: On Decommissioning Vermont Yankee

Attorney General Sorrell 

After some preliminary reports that "negotiations between Governor Shumlin's administration and Entergy would be held," we finally have a report that one such meeting was held.

"Issues" were discussed--

Dave Gram of Associated Press reports that Governor Shumlin, Attorney General Sorrell, Department of Public Service Commissioner Recchia (and perhaps others) are meeting with Entergy. The group plans to prepare a "global agreement" on decommissioning issues. They have met at least once, and  they plan to meet again in early December.  

This is a round of "formal negotiations." According to Sorrell, it includes discussion of the following "issues":

• how much work will need to be done on the site, 
• what's in the underground piping, 
• how long it's likely to take for the nuclear fuel rods to cool enough that they can be moved

Since these "issues" are actually not "issues" but facts, I think  the Shumlin people are actually just getting a briefing from Entergy. This doesn't sound like a "negotiation."  If it is any kind of negotiation,  I wish the plant the best of luck.  I think that Entergy may want a global agreement.

But sound bites may be planned.

I also think that Governor Shumlin will prefer having sound bites to having an agreement. 

Governor Shumlin

I suspect Shumlin plans to hold a press conference after the meetings. In this conference, he will claim that Entergy-Louisiana would not give Shumlin what he wants for the people-of-Vermont. (We don't live in Louisiana, you know?)

Okay, okay, I am judging Shumlin by his past words and his past actions.  He may have changed.  I believe that people can change.  I will have to wait and see if Governor Shumlin has changed.  For the sake of my friends at the plant, I hope Shumlin has changed!

However, if Shumlin begins insulting "Entergy-Louisiana" in the near future, please remember that you read it here first.