PUC meeting on decomm April 12

sign from Wikimedia

Vermont PUC hearing on NorthStar sale set for April 12 in Brattleboro

As I described in a previous blog post, Entergy plans to sell Vermont Yankee to NorthStar for decommissioning. Most (but not all) of the intervenors are now supporting this sale. 

The sale must be approved by the Vermont Public Utilities Commission, and the Commission is holding a public hearing on April 12 in Brattleboro. 

Guy Page of Vermont Energy Partnership has a recent op-ed in the Brattleboro Reformer:  Settlement builds foundation for hope at Vermont Yankee.  In this article, he describes how the terms of the settlement will help the Windham County region, and the entire state. My favorite quote from his op-ed:

"For its part, Entergy will contribute an estimated $30 million for site restoration, and also will contribute another $40 million, if needed. 

To its credit, the state did not use the settlement as an ATM machine to fund state programs, as was the practice of some recent administrations."

Supporters, please come!

Guy wrote an email about the meeting to some plant supporters. Here is a partial quote:

The next - and final - Vermont Public Utility Commission (PUC) meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 12 from 7-9:00 PM at Brattleboro Union High School in the multipurpose room. An informational session will be held prior to the meeting at 6:00 PM.

Please mark your calendars and plan on attending this public hearing. Even though a settlement has been reached, many longtime critics of Vermont Yankee did not participate in the negotiations, and it is likely that they will make their voices heard. The PUC needs to hear from Vernon, Windham County and the rest of Vermont why they support the settlement and why sale of Vermont Yankee to NorthStar is of economic and environmental benefit.

Please attend if you possibly can.

For more information, contact page at vtep.org  
----
Page is a frequent guest blogger at this blog.

(Note: the Vermont Public Service Board has been renamed as the Vermont Public Utility Commission.)

Write a Note for California

Diablo Canyon from Wikipedia

Citizens For Green Nuclear Power

In California, Californians for Green Nuclear Power is supporting the continued operation of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear plant. This citizen's group is entirely volunteer and self-funded.  Several of them recently carpooled to Sacramento to testify in front of the California Energy Commission.

Now you can help them, help the nuclear industry, and help Diablo Canyon!  But you have to do it by 5 p.m. today. (California time).

A group called Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility has accused Diablo Canyon of not being seismically safe because the plant supposedly did not analyze the effect of a huge earthquake…directly under the plant!  The Alliance does not acknowledge that scientists analyze earthquakes by analyzing the result of earthquakes due to faults, not earthquakes that that they assign to occur at random locations.

Please submit your comments here.  DO IT TODAY!

https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/Ecomment/Ecomment.aspx?docketnumber=15-IEPR-12

You don't have to write anything very lengthy.  Just say that PG&E did an excellent review of seismic safety in the 2012 time-frame, and that the NRC regularly reviews seismic safety in terms of new data.  Or say whatever you want to say, in the words you want to use.  Just do it!

Background

Here's the PG&E report: Central Coast California Seismic Imaging Project. I found the first pages of the Technical Summary the most useful.

Gene Nelson has single-handedly uploaded many comments in response to the Sierra Club and other comments.  Let's help him.  Here's the docket, and you can see his comments.

The Public Service Board Order: Guest post by John McClaughry

John McClaughry

The Public Service Board (PSB) has approved the memorandum agreement between the Public Service Department and Entergy, dealing with closing down Vermont Yankee. PSB approval was given over the vocal protests of the New England Coalition people.

The PSB approved Yankee’s operation until the end of this year, noting gratuitously that it might well have demanded a shutdown if there was any prospect of the plant continuing beyond then.

The Order spent a lot of space discussing what it considers to be a “fair partner” with the state. It described what it called Entergy's "corrosive and bullying attitude  and said that Entergy had made "frivolous arguments to resist valid discovery.” Well, I admit that Entergy made some mistakes that it should not have made in its presentations to the Board.

 But what is curious to me is the Board’s totally ignoring the effect of the 2006 legislature’s  passing Act 160, the law that destroyed the 2002 memorandum of understanding between the state and Entergy. Act 160 is mentioned only once, and only in passing, in the 84 page order.

 So tell me: What kind of “fair partner” was the State of Vermont, when it irresponsibly turned the plant’s future over to legislative control, based on no standards at all? This was outrageous, and the Federal courts overturned it six years later. The Public service Board  harped on Entergy’s procedural shortcomings, but ignored the state’s far more severe misbehavior.

-------

This post first appeared as a radio commentary on WDEV on April 21, 2014.

John McClaughry is a founder and current vice-president of the Ethan Allen Institute. Meredith Angwin is head of the Energy Education Project, which is part of that institute.

Board Issues CPG to Vermont Yankee through 2014

Public Service Board
David Coen, James Volz, John Burke

A Certificate while pouting

The Public Service Board issued a Certificate of Public Good for Vermont Yankee, to run through the end of 2014.  They did it with their usual insulting snark toward Entergy. As VPR quoted the Board order:

“In its 12 years of operating in Vermont, Entergy VY has failed to comply with numerous board orders and statutory requirements,” the board said. “It has failed to follow procedural requirements that protect the integrity of board proceedings. The company has engaged in unacceptable conduct that erodes public trust and its capacity to act in good faith and to engage in fair dealing.”

The board said that if Entergy had wanted a 20 year license extension, “its track record may well have led us to find that ownership and operation would not promote the general good.”

Why did I quote VPR's quote of the order? Why didn't I quote the order directly myself? Well, frankly, because I haven't read it.  This order is 97 pages long.  Here's a link:

http://psb.vermont.gov/sites/psb/files/orders/2014/2014-03/7862%20Final%20Order.pdf

As VPR quoted Shumlin: Gov. Peter Shumlin was also pleased with the decision. “The decision provides certainty and predictability for the hard workers at the plant, over $10 million of economic development funding for the region, and lets us focus on the important work of transitioning to a future after Vermont Yankee..

Well, that is enough for now.  My snark factor is rising, along with my blood pressure.  Gosh, Governor Shumlin cares about the "hard workers at the plant." Yeah, sure!

The Board makes its own bed

I am very glad that the Board ruled in a timely fashion, and they did not attempt to shut down the plant a few months early.

Canada, with Quebec highlighted

From my point of view, the members of the board can now go ahead and enjoy their pouting about Entergy's "unacceptable conduct."  I think the main "unacceptable conduct" was Entergy winning its lawsuits.

Hopefully, this is it. No nuclear plant will ever again have to deal with the Vermont Public Service Board.  Instead, the Board can enjoy trying to control the Canadian companies who supply Vermont's gas and electricity.

Over and out, and more later.

----

Update: Rod Adams blog post about visiting Vermont Yankee is now also posted at The Energy Collective. It has generated a lively comment stream, including comments from

• opponents from the Brattleboro area, 
• Bas Gresnigt,
• N Nadir, expert and blogger extraordinaire,
• and several good people who are knowledgable about nuclear energy.

Join the conversation!

https://theenergycollective.com/rodadams/360846/what-waste-vermont-yankee-beautiful-condition

Issues and Re-Issues on the way to a CPG for Vermont Yankee

The agreement

In December, Entergy and various state agencies signed an agreement about the final year of Vermont Yankee's operation, lawsuits, payments, and several issues concerning decommissioning.

If the Public Service Board (PSB) acts in favor of this agreement, Vermont Yankee will receive a Certificate of Public Good to operate to the end of this fuel cycle.  You can read more about this agreement in Guy Page's guest post: Reasons the Public Service Board Should Grant an CPG to Vermont Yankee, and my post The Proposed Entergy Settlement is Good for Vermont.

I hope this agreement will be ratified by the Public Service Board.

But the story is always longer and more complex than it first appears.

Issues and Re-Issues

1) Issue: The Ruling and the Timing
According to Section 2 of the Settlement Agreement, there's a March 31 deadline. If the Board does not grant Vermont Yankee a CPG that approves the continued operation of the plant through the end of the fuel cycle, and in accordance with the agreement terms, the agreement may terminate at the discretion of either party.   So we can expect to hear something from the PSB by Monday, March 31.

Re-Issue: BrinksmanshipLast year, when the Board had a deadline about a CPG for emergency diesels for Vermont Yankee, they waited till the last minute to issue the ruling. They played a game of brinksmanship, as I described in A Court Case with a Deadline: The Black Start Diesels.  Are they still playing this game, or will they rule?  We will know by March 31.

2) Issue: The Decommissioning Timing
When the agreement was announced, both sides stated that they had made an agreement on what they could agree upon, but other issues were not resolved. One particular issue is that the state wants fuel moved from the fuel pools as soon as possible, but the state also wants the "real decommissioning" to begin as soon as possible.

So the state wants the fuel to be moved, but no decommissioning funds are to be expended to move it. As I noted in The Fuel Pools: Opponents Say the Darndest Things Attorney General Bill Sorrell plans to "take legal action" if Entergy removes money from the fund in order to move the fuel rods.

Re-Issue: Pre-Emption Sorrell says the state wants a "legal opportunity to be heard on those requests."  In this case, "those requests" are Vermont Yankee requests to the NRC for permission to use decommissioning funds for fuel management. Of course, this is a traditional use of decommissioning funds.   

Does the state truly want to get into a court battle about regulating nuclear operations and safety? Didn't they learn something by losing two court cases?

3) Issue: Will the State Obey the Law?
Okay, let's assume the issues above are resolved nicely.  Let's say that the PSB rules on time, and they rule in substantial agreement with the Settlement Agreement.  Let's say that Attorney General Sorrell finally understands the term "federal jurisdiction over nuclear safety" and decides not to sue if Entergy uses decommissioning funds for decommissioning.  In other words, everything is great.

The question becomes: Will it matter? Will the state live up to its side of the bargain?

Re-Issue: The Shumlin Administration Regularly Breaks Its Own Laws

Earlier this year, John McClaughry wrote comments to the PSB: "Can Entergy Trust the State?" McClaughry explained that when the state passed a law giving the legislature a vote about Vermont Yankee's continued operation, this law was a clear breach of contract with Entergy. The law was a major and one-sided modification of the Memorandum of Understanding that Entergy had signed.  

In my opinion, the state is quite happy to break any law that inconveniences it.  This is not just about Entergy.  Governor Shumlin has been eager to pass a law for single-payer health care, and the law was passed. According to that law, the government had to propose a plan for financing the system, and the plan had to be presented to the legislature by January 15, 2013. It has still not been presented.  Estimates for the cost of the single-payer system range from $1.5 billion to $2.2 billion per year.  There are about 600,000 people in Vermont.  If the cost is $1.8 billion, that is $3000 per citizen.  A rather massive payroll tax has been proposed, and of course, everyone hates that idea.   

When Governor Shumlin was recently asked: "What else can we tax (besides a payroll tax  to finance this)?" Shumlin answered: "bubble gum and lollipops."  I encourage you to read Representative Tom Koch's Op Ed on this subject: A Governor Who is Above the Law.  I

 also recommend Rob Roper's commentary: Irreconcilable Differences in Single Payer Promises.  

Note for those who do not live in Vermont: this is not about the Affordable Care Act.  This is about a single-payer system that the state of Vermont, all by itself, plans to implement.
I don't want to get deep into the weeds of this controversy, but I just want to say that if Shumlin does not obey his own laws (the ones HE wanted to pass) about his own pet project, how is he going to treat the Entergy agreement?

Soon we will know

The PSB should rule by Monday, March 31, or the Settlement Agreement may become null and void.

• The PSB may rule for the agreement, or they may rule against it, or they may stall and not rule at all.  
• If they do rule for the agreement, the Attorney General may still sue Entergy for moving spent fuel from the fuel pool, and using the "wrong" money to do so.  
• If all is well with the PSB ruling and the Attorney General, the state may simply ignore their obligations under the contract.

Welcome to Vermont politics. Stay tuned.  Oh yes.  Stay tuned.

------

Acknowledgment: John McClaughry and Rob Roper are officers of the Ethan Allen Institute.  I am director of the Energy Education Project which is part of that institute.

Update: Vermont and Entergy Make Nice

The Agreement and the Comments

This Sunday, my op-ed on the Vermont -Entergy agreement was printed in the Valley News. I will reprint  the op-ed on my blog in a day or so. For now, I encourage you to read it at the Valley News.

In this op-ed, I summarize the agreement between Vermont and Entergy.  I described the four points of the agreement:

1. State and Entergy agreeing to appear together before the Public Service Board
2. Both sides dropping their lawsuits 
3. Entergy making payments to the state 
4. Resolution of some issues on decommissioning 

I encouraged readers to support this agreement before the Public Service Board by commenting on the docket.

Here's the op-ed:

http://www.vnews.com/opinion/10546138-95/column-vermont-and-entergy-make-nice

And here's the docket, where you can read the agreement and you can comment.

http://psb.vermont.gov/docketsand%20projects/electric/7862

Aww heck...here's the comment form, too!

http://psb.vermont.gov/docketsand%20projects/electric/7862


Update: The op-ed was published this morning by Vermont Digger in the Commentary section.  At VTDigger, it has a less catchy title, but one that better reflects the tone of the op-ed:


Entergy settlement before the PSB is good for the state.

The Valley News does not allow comments, but VTDigger often has long comment strings.  I encourage people to comment.

Common Ground on Vermont Yankee: Guest Post by Brad Ferland

Vermont finally has found common ground on Vermont Yankee

By Brad Ferland, President
Vermont Energy Partnership

Brad Ferland
November 2012 PSB meeting

When the State of Vermont holds a major public hearing about Vermont Yankee and almost no-one attends, what does it mean?

I was asking myself this question as I waited, virtually alone, to testify at a well-announced public hearing Tuesday, January 14 in the Vermont Interactive Television studio in Williston. The subject of Vermont Yankee usually draws a big, passionate crowd, with both supporters and opponents eager to express their views. Yet on this night, most of the state's 13 interactive TV studios were empty. I was the only person to testify in the only studio located in populous Chittenden County.  For lack of testimony, the meeting ended an hour and a half earlier than scheduled.

The Vermont Public Service Board had called the meeting to solicit comment from all Vermonters about Vermont Yankee's request to operate through the end of 2014. A PSB decision on whether to grant a Certificate of Public Good, a requirement for the plant to continue to operate in 2014, is expected by March 31.

A lot is riding on that decision. In the recent years through 2012, Vermont Yankee provided about a third of all electricity consumed in Vermont, and still had plenty to sell to the rest of New England. Since opening in the early 1970’s, Vermont Yankee has made about three-quarters of the total power produced in Vermont. Last August, plant owner Entergy announced that (due mostly to the very low market cost of electricity), the plant would close in 2014.

On December 23, the State of Vermont and Entergy announced a master settlement of most of their differences. The agreement says Entergy will close the plant, proceed with safe, responsible decommissioning, and will pay $10 million for economic re-development of Windham County and $5.2 million into a state fund for renewable power. Both sides will drop the many expensive legal disputes now in federal courts.

Board member David Coen, Board Chairman James Volz
Board member John Burke

The agreement also specifically requires Public Service Board approval to operate Vermont Yankee through 2014. So if approval is denied, the settlement falls apart and has to be entirely re-negotiated or litigated. Supporters of the settlement include Governor Peter Shumlin, Attorney General William Sorrell, and many legislative leaders.

The financial aid is a continuation of Vermont Yankee's longstanding practice of supporting the Windham County economy and the state's renewable power future. The plant has long been the cornerstone of the local economy and virtually the sole funder of the Vermont Clean Energy Development Fund. Entergy needs PSB approval because the plant's workers need to know they will have their jobs until sometime near the end of this year, giving them time to find new work, homes, and schools. In short, PSB approval is highly desirable for Vermont Yankee workers, for the area's economic recovery, and for the state's renewable power future.

I appeared at the hearing to tell the Public Service Board essentially what I have been saying since co-founding the Partnership seven years ago: an operational Vermont Yankee helps the economy, ratepayers, taxpayers, and environment of our beloved state. Indeed, even without a settlement agreement, Vermont Yankee’s continued operation is in the state’s best interest.

And now finally I return to the question: why didn't more people attend? Perhaps it is because, as Attorney General Sorrell said at the Dec. 23 master settlement announcement, it is time for peace. Most Vermonters, at long last, have found common ground on Vermont Yankee. Under the settlement, the plant will close; the expensive federal lawsuits are history; economic and environmental needs are addressed. It's a good deal for everyone and the PSB should swiftly approve the Certificate of Public Good.

----------
Brad Ferland, a resident of St. Albans Town, is president of the Vermont Energy Partnership (www.vtep.org), a Montpelier-based coalition of more than 90 businesses, labor organizations, not-for-profits, and individuals committed to a clean, safe, affordable, and reliable energy future for Vermont.

Take Action: Comments to the Public Service Board

Vermont Yankee supporters lining up to speak
November 2012 Public Service Board hearing

Take Action:

The Public Service Board is considering the recent agreement between Vermont Yankee and the state. This agreement allows Vermont Yankee to continue to operate until the end of its current fuel cycle, without further lawsuits. I encourage readers to take action by emailing comments to the Public Service Board.   Here's the link for comments;

http://psb.vermont.gov/docketsandprojects/public-comment?docket=7862


The Agreement and the Public Service Board

The Public Service Board is now accepting comments on the agreement (Memorandum of Understanding) which was signed by Entergy and various state agencies in December 2013.  This is agreement  will allow Vermont Yankee to operate until the end of the year, and will also require Vermont Yankee to pay around $40 million dollars to the state and to various funds.  It's a really good deal for the state.  Here's a link to the agreement.

As I noted in my earlier blog post, this agreement will not take effect unless the Public Service Board grants Vermont Yankee a Certificate of Public Good substantially based upon the agreement.

It's a good deal for Entergy, also, because it means that Entergy will be able to finish up this fuel cycle in a reasonable and planned manner. With this agreement, Entergy won't have to fight the state in court in order to finish this fuel cycle.  The Department of Public Service, the Vermont Attorney General, the Agency of Natural Resources have all signed the agreement also.

I encourage you to support this agreement in front of the Public Service Board.

Email the Board or Attend the Hearing 

Email your opinion:

Please write your support of this agreement (or whatever your opinion might be), using this form on the Public Service Board site.

http://psb.vermont.gov/docketsandprojects/public-comment?docket=7862

Attend the hearing:

If you live in Vermont, you might consider going to the one public hearing about this amended docket. It is Tuesday night, January 14, starting at 7 p.m.

The hearing will be held all over Vermont, in the interactive TV studios set up for this purpose.  Here's the announcement.   Hearings will be held in Bennington, Brattleboro, Johnson, Lyndonville, Middlebury, Montpelier, Newport, Randolph Center, Rutland, Springfield, St. Albans, White River Junction, and Williston.  In other words, if you live in Vermont, there's a studio near you.

Also, attending these local studio events is sort of fun. Not completely fun, but sort of fun. You will see your neighbors, whether you agree with them or not.  These studio events draw a different crowd than the almost-professional anti-nuclear group that comes to hearings in Montpelier or Brattleboro. You can also see people in the other TV studios on the video screen, as the camera moves from location to location.

I wish I could come to Tuesday's interactive TV hearing: I have been to several like this.  However, just at the same time, I need to attend an event which is important to my husband.

In any rate, do email your support of the agreement, if you support it.

Suggestions for what to say

These Public Service Board dockets about Vermont Yankee have been going on for a very looong time. "Coming up to speed" on everything is probably not a realistic option.  Here's the Public Service Board site for this docket, if you want to dive in.

In my opinion, you can just read the agreement itself instead of all the other material.  I suggest writing something very short and simple about "being in support of the state agencies that support this agreement," and/ or "being in support of the workers at Vermont Yankee who will be able to plan their futures more effectively with this agreement."

About the workers: in the last two minutes of this video, Entergy Vice President Mike Twomey explains that an overarching goal of the negotiations was to provide twelve months of certainty for the employees of Vermont Yankee. This video was taken at the December 23, 2013 press conference announcing the agreement.




 You can read more about the press conference, and see the entire conference on video, at this post by John Herrick at Vermont Digger.

The Agreement between Vermont Yankee and Some State Agencies

The Agreement

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

The link is below (13 page pdf).

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

The Missing Link

Christopher Recchia
Commissioner
Dept of Public Service

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

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

Section 2 of the agreement below:


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

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


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

Not Over Till It's Over

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

Here's my quote from that interview.

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

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

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

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

Vermont Yankee Wins in Appeals Court

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

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

The Appeals Court Ruling

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, they were regulating safety

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

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

On to the Public Service Board

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

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

Cheryl Hanna

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

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

 Still Time to Comment

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

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

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

Law and Facts won this round!  Onwards!

Nuclear Opponents View of New Hydro in Vermont

New Hydro Power in Vermont

I blogged recently about the potential for new in-state hydro power in Vermont.  Quoting many studies, I concluded that not much new in-state hydro power is available for Vermont.  My estimate was about 25 MW possible. Please read the entire post for the justification of this number.

Vermont Yankee opponents, on the other hand, often say there is much more hydro available for Vermont.  Among the opponents, VPIRG is the most honest: their  Repowering Vermont report predicted only 15 MW expansion in hydro power.

Other opponents wave their hands in the air and claim that new hydro in Vermont can be a serious addition to the fuel mix in Vermont.  They don't state numbers and they don't state references. They don't adhere to the generally accepted rules of evidence.  They don't...

Aw heck.  I'll just quote them.

Evidence, Pre-Filed Testimony, and Loaded Questions

On February 14, I attended a Public Service Board hearing about the Certificate of Public Good for Vermont Yankee. At that hearing, Entergy presented Jeffrey Tranen as an expert witness.  You can read Mr. Tranen's resume here, and you can read his pre-filed testimony for the Board at the relicensing docket.  Tranen has held responsible positions with grid operators and utilities. Tranen testified on the need for reliability and a good fuel mix on the grid.

Vermont Yankee (620 MW)
Vernon Dam (34 MW)

In general, substantive issues are supposed to be entered into the docket as pre-filed testimony.  You can see volumes of pre-filed testimony at the relicensing docket site, above.

New England Coalition is an old-line nuclear opponent, and an intervenor in the docket.  The lawyer for the New England Coalition was Brice Simon.

Examination is supposed to be on the basis of the pre-filed testimony.  However, the Public Service Board is quasi-judicial, not a court of law, so there is some leeway.  Also, in most courts of law, while leading questions are sometimes permissible, loaded questions are not.  Loaded questions assume an answer, and the classic loaded question is described in Wikipedia as follows:

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" indirectly asserting that the subject has beaten her at some point.

Okay, cutting to the chase here.  Brice Simon's questions for Tranen seemed so inappropriate that I obtained a copy of the transcript for that day so that I could quote the exchange directly. The transcript is a public record, but it is not on the Public Service Board website.

See what you think of these questions.

I Know and You Don't--So Hah-Hah!

Context: Discussion of Vermont Yankee's role in diversifying the fuel supply mix in this area, an area which has limited natural gas pipelines.

(Questions by Brice  Simon, NEC lawyer; answers by Jeffrey Tranen, Entergy Witness; Objection by Robert Juman, Entergy Lawyer; Comment by James Volz, Chairman of the Public Service Board)

Illustration from
Renewable Energy Vermont

Q. Just to follow up on that one, isn't locally produced hydro power one type of fuel that can step in to meet that need rather than Vermont Yankee?

A. Local hydro is already factored into the dispatch.

Q. What I'm asking is increased local hydro over time could come in to meet that need, correct?

A. I question whether there's enough increased local hydro of the magnitude of a Vermont Yankee power plant, but in general any other source of power than gas which is economic -- more economic than gas to operate in the dispatch would reduce the amount of gas that's required during the operating day.

Q. Are you aware of how much untapped hydro resources there remain in the State of Vermont?

A. I don't have specific numbers, but when I was actively involved in management with regard to New England it was my understanding that there was very little economic new hydro in New England to be developed.

Q. And when was that?

A. A decade ago.

Q. A decade ago. So you're not aware of all of the wonderful improvements that Vermont hydro developers are seeing that are increasing the available economic hydro in the state, are you?

A. I am not aware of the -- to what extent there could be new hydro that would be economic to develop in Vermont.

Q. Are you aware of the recent developments in run-of-the-river hydrologic turbines?

MR. JUMAN: Objection. What developments are you referring to?

MR. SIMON: I'm asking if the witness is aware of the developments that I'm aware of that I'm not going to tell about.

MR. JUMAN: Then I object to that question. You're asking him about something you're not sharing with him.

MR. SIMON: I don't have to share it with him.

MR. JUMAN: You're asking him to read your mind.

MR. SIMON: No. I'm asking his state of knowledge. I don't have to tell him.

CHAIRMAN VOLZ: I think it's fair to ask him if he's -- we are -- what developments in hydro technology is he aware of.

MR. SIMON: I'll rephrase the question happily.

BY MR. SIMON: Q. What, if any, developments in the area of run-of-the-river hydrologic turbines are you aware of?

A. I am not aware of any hydroelectric technology developments that would make new hydro development economic in competing with gas fired generation to any great extent.

Q. Thank you. ..

My Conclusion

A fishy fish from Wikipedia

Mr Simon did not even attempt to justify his implied assertion that recent improvements had greatly expanded hydro power availability in Vermont.  He didn't enter anything about these new improvements into the pre-filed testimony. (All the NEC pre-filed testimony is about fish and cooling towers.) Instead, Simon resorted to loaded questions and "I know but I'm not telling." With this, he tried to convince the Public Service Board that there is lots of new hydro available to Vermont.

Simon seems to be claiming that there is new hydro available, on the same scale as Vermont Yankee power, but as small run-of-the-river plants, using an unreferenced new technology.  And he doesn't have to tell anything more about it.

Hopefully, the Board is smart enough to see through this type of questioning.

Video Day: Climate Change Presentation and more

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

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

There were several other differences between our two events.

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

Court House Update in February

I went to a Superbowl party, and everyone asked me: "What's going on with Vermont Yankee?"

It's very confusing.  As a matter of fact, the whole thing is as confusing as a complex play in a football game.  I wish I had instant-replay and colorful arrows to track the different players.  Anyhow...

There are four court cases, at least two Public Service Board cases, and maybe more.  Here goes.

The Four Court Cases

The first case is the federal appeals case held in New York City last month: 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.  The state was trying to convince the court that it had economic reasons to shut down Vermont Yankee. The hearing was 30 minutes long and I think that the state's case is fairly weak.  In any event, the judges will rule in a few weeks or a few months or whenever.  You can read about it and listen to the hearing on my blog post:  State Claims Economic Argument for Closing Plant.

The second case is the intervenor case claiming that Vermont Yankee is operating illegally: this case was brought in Vermont Supreme Court. This is the "let's you and him fight" case, where the Public Service Board wrote a strange ambiguous letter that opened the door for such lawsuits.  You can read about it at my earlier Hot Potato blog posts. Or you can watch a succinct 90 second video from WPTZ at my post: The Short Version: Another View of the Vermont Supreme Court Hearing.The hearing is over, and we wait for a ruling from Vermont Supreme Court.

The third case is a new case, brought by Entergy, about the Public Service Board closing a docket. This case is also in Vermont Supreme Court. The Public Service Board had a docket, docket 7440, on the Vermont Yankee Certificate of Public Good, but they decided that docket was compromised by the various lawsuits. So the PSB opened a new docket, docket 7862, subject of my blog post: Docket 7862, Where Are You?  (Docket 7862 is now on the Public Service Board website).

In January, the Public Service Board closed docket 7440.  However, the "you and him fight" letter (see the second case) was on that docket, and closing the docket might have consequences.  I am not a lawyer, and I am puzzled.  However, Entergy reviewed the matter,  and they brought suit in Vermont Supreme Court against the Public Service Board for closing the docket.  An article by Susan Smallheer at the Rutland Herald gives the background of the case. The article ends with the confusing (to me) statement that the PSB thinks that by triggering an appeal by Entergy, the court cases would ultimately be simplified.

I also recommend you to read the Entergy brief, which I have posted at the Energy Education Project website.  It has appendices that give all the relevant statements, dockets, etc.  The Entergy brief is like a history of the case.  When you figure out this whole thing, write a comment or send me an email.  Okay?  Thanks.  I appreciate your help.

The fourth case is about money, specifically the sudden $12 million dollars a year tax that Vermont laid on "plants above 200 MW that started operations after 1965." Entergy claimed this was an unconstitutional levy on a single business.  (I agree!) A federal court recently said they lacked jurisdiction on this and dismissed the case.  I thought I would list it here, because it is an important case, in my opinion. It may be case-closed, or it may be heard in another court.  I don't know, but I think it is important.

The Two Public Service Board Cases

One of the cases is  Docket 7862, the new docket about the Certificate for Public Good. This seems to be going along according to schedule.  Public hearings are over, but public input continues.  You can submit your input through this form.  I hope you will write something about why you think Vermont Yankee should have a certificate of Public Good.

The other docket is about the new diesel generator, as mentioned in my post Black Start, BlackOut and Diesels. Due to a grid operator change in the classification of Vernon Dam, Vermont Yankee needs a new diesel generator, and needs a Certificate of Public Good for that diesel.  There was one hearing on this docket 7964, and it was not reported in the press.

Word of mouth says the hearing was very preliminary and inconclusive.  I bet it was!

• If the PSB grants permission for the diesel, are they also signalling that they plan to grant a Certificate of Public Good for Vermont Yankee?  
• If they don't grant permission, are they interfering with nuclear safety requirements?  

I personally think "inconclusive" will reign on this docket until other issues are resolved.

Football is over

Football is over until next year, but the court cases linger on....Sometimes I wish I wasn't the go-to person for these questions all the time.  It makes it hard to concentrate on the game. Can someone please pass the potato chips?

The Short Version: Another View of the Vermont Supreme Court Hearing

Yesterday, I posted about the Vermont Supreme Court hearing about Vermont Yankee. An anti-nuclear group asked the Vermont Supreme Court to shut down the plant though the Public Service Board hearings are on-going.

Yesterday's post is Unique Request: Opponent Wants Vermont Supreme Court to Rule Before PSB Rules.  The post includes links to many articles about the hearing. It's the long version.

Here's the short version.

I think many of the issues are encapsulated in this video clip from WPTZ.  The clip is about a minute and a half long, and worth viewing.

139th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers: Right Here at Yes Vermont Yankee

Yes Vermont Yankee is proud to be the host of the 139th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers.  After a quiet holiday season, the bloggers have roared back with terrific posts!     The three subjects this time are Radiation, Energy, and Politics.  So, let's get started!

Radiation

Radiation: No Effects on Health 

Perhaps the most important link in this blog is to James Conca's article at Forbes: Like We've Been Saying, Radiation is Not a Big Deal.  

Conca describes the very recent United Nations (UNSCEAR) report on radiation risk, which  paid special attention to the consequences of Fukushima. Here's a quote from the Conca article:   "UNSCEAR also found no observable health effects from last year’s nuclear accident in Fukushima.  No effects."

In short, the Linear No Threshold (LNT) model is simply....wrong.  This is an important post.  I encourage you to read it.

Radiation: Over-Fearing the Food

Meanwhile, Japanese regulators have been trying to reassure people in Japan that their food is safe by setting very low levels for allowed radiation.  As Leslie Corrice describes in Hiroshima Syndrome, this policy has hit an embarrassing snag.   Japan’s Contamination Limits Way Too Low (January 7 post)

Japan's new, too-low standards for radiation in food has hit a snag. Mushrooms from Aomori Prefecture have been banned because of cesium levels slightly above the new limit, but the cesium did not come from the Fukushima accident. Unless the standards are raised to a more-reasonable level, more and more of these disconcerting situations will happen. (Note, the Conca article also has a table about these unrealistic standards. )

Radiation: Using It For Safe Food

Radioisotopes made in nuclear reactors power Mars and deep space probes, and make astronauts' food safe to eat. In two recent posts, Steve Aplin of Canadian Energy Issues urges the fast expansion of radioisotope applications here on earth

Aplin wonders why irradiation makes food safe for astronauts, but we don't use radiation for keeping food safe on earth.  Irradiated food keeps astronauts healthy and productive. Why can’t we earth dwellers have it?  Aplin notes that safe-to-eat beef would be a pleasure. He gets tired of the frequent recalls on beef products.

Radiation: Using It for Heat

Aplin also notes that radioactive isotopes can be used for heat, and have been used that way in the past, in the arctic. Isotopes for heat: an old new idea whose time came, went, and has come again

Radiation: Using It for Poetry

At Atomic Insights, Rod Adams has a guest post from Engineer-Poet.  What's This Stuff Called Radiation. Rod rarely has guest posts, and this is the first open-source poem as a guest post.  Some of the comments are also poetry. Some are limericks.  All are fun!

Nuclear Energy

And on that note, we will turn to the subject of Nuclear Energy, past, present and future.  They are all linked.   For example: Enrico Fermi is the past, right? Well, maybe not so past...some of his reactor designs are part of the future.

Nuclear Energy: Enrico Fermi and the Sodium Fast Reactor

Carl Holder writes 70 Years Ago:- Dr. Enrico Fermi at usa-cargo.info. In Chicago 70 years ago, a team of scientists lead by Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Enrico Fermi, created the first controlled nuclear fission.

Dr. Fermi envisioned a future that needed abundant nuclear energy for the production of energy and isotopes.  He calculated that the uranium resource could be used much more efficiently with a fast reactor.  So he designed a more efficient, sustainable fission system: the sodium fast reactor.

Nuclear Energy: Using the "Waste"

Sodium Cooled reactor schematic

At the Atomic Show, Rod Adams has a podcast from one of the most respected mystery men of the nuclear community.  NNadir is a prolific pro-nuclear blogger at the very liberal blog Daily Kos. On the Atomic Show with Rod Adams, NNadir and Adams discuss: What do you do with the waste?  (hint...it isn't waste...it's useful...Rod suggests listening to the talk with a periodic table along for reference...)

Nuclear Energy: The Enrichment Process

Robert Hayes, at Science and Technology Blog, describes Uranium Enrichment at URENCO USA (in southeast New Mexico). 

Nuclear Energy: Using It for Military Energy Sources

At Nuke Power Talk, Gail Marcus makes note of some of the recent proposals to have the military support the development of new energy technologies, such as wind power. In fact, the concept is far from new, as nuclear power owes its early development to military support, not only for weapons development, but also for submarine and ship propulsion.  Energy R and D and the Military: Historic Partners.

Nuclear Energy: A New Fuel for Power Uprates

Brian Wang, at Next Big Future, describes an investor presentation and analysis of LightBridge's annular metal fuel for uprating the power in nuclear reactors. 

The Lightbridge presentation describes the economic case and technical details of their annular metallic fuel for uprating the power in nuclear reactors. They expect regulatory approval for the new fuel by 2018, and commercial use a few years after that.  The post also includes graphs from an economic analysis of future power prices, by Pace Global. Using this fuel, increased power generation will have a levelized cost of 20-30$ per MWH which is less than half the projected cost of coal and natural gas, or of regular nuclear construction

Nuclear Energy: The New Builds are Happening

At Things Worse Than Nuclear Power, one of the first blog posts of 2013 shows that 2012 wasn't the end of the world for nuclear, either. There are 167 proposed nuclear builds world-wide, and 63 under construction.  Vive la nucléaire 2013!

Politics

We can't escape it, but we can blog about it. Politics.

Politics: No Holiday from Politics in Vermont

Vermont Public Service Board
at a recent hearing

At ANS Nuclear Cafe, Howard Shaffer's post No Holiday from Politics has the latest from the legal and political fronts concerning the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant -- the courts, the legislature, the grid operator, the river, the year ahead.  While the plant itself continues to operate very well, generating nearly three-fourths of all electricity generated in Vermont without incident -- the year ahead nonetheless looks to feature drama within the courtroom and without.  With many good links.

Politics: The Court Cases of Vermont Yankee

Right here at Yes Vermont Yankee, we cover the three upcoming hearings and court cases (you know, the ones happening next week) at Three Vermont Yankee Hearings: The Week of Living Lawyerly.  There's a hearing at the court of appeals in New York City, another at the Supreme Court in Vermont, and a third at the Public Service Board in Vermont.  Get your background information and scorecard here!

Politics: Pro-Uranium Democrat, Dick Saslaw

In Virginia, the re-opening of a uranium mine has become a rallying point for anti-nuclear activists.  In her "I Dig U Mining" blog, Andrea Jennetta writes about a Virginia senator: Senator Dick Saslaw--Fellow Democrats, Follow His Lead.   As Jennetta writes:  Yesterday Senator Dick Saslaw announced his unequivocal support for lifting Virginia’s moratorium on uranium mining. He says he’s convinced that modern technologies and strict regulations will ensure that it’s done safely and without harming the environment.

It's always great to end the Carnival on an upbeat note!  Have a great week and a future of Nuclear Energy!