The Live and Local Podcast: Assessing the Energy Plan in Vermont:

Energy Safari group 
at Lempster Wind Farm

The Comprehensive Energy Plan and My Op-Ed

The Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan, issued in 2011, asserted that Vermont would obtain 90% of all its energy from renewables by 2050.   I have been studying the land-use implications of that plan, and my husband and I are preparing a report for the Ethan Allen Institute. (I am the director of the Energy Education Project, which is part of that Institute.)

With our preliminary results, I wrote an op-ed: Vermont Renewable Plan is Wishful Thinking. This op-ed was printed in several newspapers in Vermont.  Most particularly, the op-ed was printed in The Commons, a weekly independent, nonprofit paper in Brattleboro.  I want to give a hat tip to Jeff Potter of The Commons, because he truly welcomes voices from both sides of this controversy.

Chris Lenois is host of the Live and Local radio program in Brattleboro (WKVT 1490 FM).  Lenois saw the op-ed in The Commons, and he invited me to speak on his show.  I was on Live and Local yesterday.

The Podcast

WKVT mounted a podcast of the discussion on their site: Meredith Angwin --VT Energy Policy.

Lenois asked me:

• How I estimated Vermont's future energy use
• Whether an ambitious renewables policy could encourage innovation in renewable energy
• How I derived numbers such as "400 miles of ridge line for wind turbines"
• The role of efficiency and conservation in Vermont's energy policy

To answer Lenois' questions, I needed to go into depth about land-use issues and my research methods.   I think you will find the podcast interesting.  

Thank you to Chris Lenois for inviting me and asking me serious questions.  I also thank him for his role in quickly mounting the podcast on the WKVT website.

The Very Latest Lawsuit: Opponents Will Probably Lose

The Short Version--Radio Interview

On Wednesday, I was interviewed by Pat Bradley of WAMC about the latest lawsuit related to Vermont Yankee. An intervenor filed suit in Vermont Supreme Court to shut down Vermont Yankee. The suit won't get anywhere, in my opinion.

You can listen to the three minute radio clip here.  The clip includes:

• Ray Shadis of New England Coalition saying why they filed suit in Vermont Supreme Court. 
• My interview saying why the suit won't get anywhere.
• Pat Parentau of Vermont Law School saying why the suit won't get anywhere.  

Bradley packs a lot of information into a short segment! It is well worth listening IMO.

Note: Shadis is also the man who debated Howard Shaffer on Thursday, as reported in this blog.
------------

The Long Version -- Including Federal and State Legal Cases and Time Line

Still, it's a short radio segment, so here's the background. Sorry it is so lengthy, but it just is.  Legal cases, you know.  They go on for years.

Spring--Federal Court--Judge Murtha: In January and March of this year, Judge Murtha of the Federal Court in Brattleboro issued two rulings about Vermont Yankee.  I have both of the rulings (and a lot of other briefs) posted on my Energy Education Project page Dockets in Entergy Appeal. The significant one for this new court case is the March ruling, which contains this ruling as the final words:

The Attorney General has represented to the Court, however, that its position is that “Entergy may continue to operate under the terms of its current CPGs while its CPG petition remains pending at the Board” and does not take the position Vermont Yankee must close after March 21, 2012, while its petition for a renewed CPG remains pending before the Public Service Board. (Doc. 202 at 11, 15.) Given this representation, the Court does not see the need to consider at this time Entergy’s request for an injunction pending appeal barring the enforcement of subsection 6522(c)(5).

Therefore, Defendants are enjoined, pending the appeal of the Court’s final judgment and Merits Decision to the Second Circuit, from addressing the storage of spent fuel under the authority of Vermont Statutes Annotated, title 10, subsection 6522(c)(2) and from bringing an enforcement action, or taking other action, to enforce subsection 6522(c)(2) to compel Vermont Yankee to shut down because the “cumulative total amount of spent fuel stored at Vermont Yankee” exceeds “the amount derived from the operation of the facility up to, but not beyond, March 21, 2012.”

In other words:

• The state Attorney General (AG) has stated that the state is not planning to shut down Vermont Yankee while appeals in court are pending.  Since the AG made this statement, the federal court will not rule on the issue.
• The federal court ruled that the state cannot shut down Vermont Yankee based on spent fuel storage--while appeals in court are pending. 

These words are legalese, but they are pretty clear.  Business continues while the court cases go on.  This is the way lawsuits are usually handled, because shutting the plant down would be the same as deciding the court case without a hearing. It wouldn't be due process.

November--Public Service Board--statement:  I also have relevant rulings from the Public Service Board on my Energy Education Project page PSB Docket 7862 filings. This page also contains a link to the PSB docket itself, now up at the PSB site.

Docket 7862 is the new docket under which the PSB will issue its ruling on the Certificate of Public Good for Vermont Yankee. The new PSB docket includes a complete timeline for their process, ending with "Reply briefs due" in late August, 2013.

(Why did the PSB need this new docket? Older dockets on the issue, such as docket 7440, were contaminated with radiological safety testimony.  So the PSB opened a new docket 7862. You can read about the PSB decision for a new docket on a previous blog post.)

Meanwhile, this spring, shortly after the Murtha ruling, Entergy asked the Public Service Board to take some things out their consideration.  Entergy said that these issues were impacted by the court cases.

On November 29, the Public Service Board issued a "strongly worded" statement that it was leaving this material in the record for consideration.  You can link to the complete PSB Statement on the Energy Education Project website. (And here's the Vermont Digger article about the statement.) 

This PSB statement was both strongly-worded and against Entergy.  However, it was also "narrow."  (That's the PSB word.)  The statement was part of the process, not a summary judgment.  On the top of page 3, introducing the rest of the 27-page document, the PSB wrote as follows:

We want to make clear — this Order is narrow. We address only Entergy VY's request for relief under Rule 60(b). Because we do not accept Entergy's arguments concerning foreseeability, which were the basis for its motion, we deny the request and do not reach any conclusions concerning the merits of modifying or extending Entergy VY's obligations under existing Orders and CPGs.
Entergy VY filed its motion in Dockets 6545 and 7082. However, in many respects, Entergy VY's motion implicitly challenges the Board's March 19 Order in Docket 7440. Because this Order of necessity responds to those challenges, the Board is also issuing this Order in Docket 7440.

In other words, the Board even issued this strong statement on the old docket, Docket 7440 (see docket listing on the first page of the statement).  However, the Board had opened a new docket, docket 7862, to decide on the Certificate of Public Good.  Issuing this statement on an old docket certainly seems pretty "narrow" to me.

Actually, let's be honest here. I don't understand why the PSB issued this statement on the old docket, 7440. They will issue the CPG on the new docket, 7862. (Yes. I am not a lawyer.)

However, it is clear to even a non-lawyer that this PSB statement is part of the process, not a direct decision by the Board about the Certificate of Public Good. Such a decision will be issued on the new docket, Docket 7862, according to the PSB timeline published on that docket.

Latest Lawsuit

Newspaper press

The New England Coalition (NEC)  is a party to both PSB dockets.  That is, they are on the docket as intervenors in the cases.

However, NEC recently chose to bring suit in Vermont Supreme Court to ask the Supreme Court to close down Vermont Yankee, based on parts of the PSB statement of November 29. As usual, the Vermont Department of Public Service is thinking of joining NEC in the suit.  Here's the Vermont Digger article on the lawsuit and the Department of Public Service.

In June, the Department of Public Service joined a NEC lawsuit against the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: they sued to require the NRC to rescind Vermont Yankee's license.  NEC and the Department lost that case.  They lost on the grounds that the lawsuit was not timely and in the wrong jurisdiction.

Guess what?  I expect the same outcome with this NEC lawsuit, whether or not the Department joins them.  NEC is expecting the state Supreme Court to hop in to the case-- at the same time that both the Public Service Board and the federal appeals court are considering various aspects of the case.  The New England Coalition expects the Vermont Supreme Court to say: "Step aside, you other courts!  This is MY business!"

Courts rarely work that way.  They don't step into other courts' process, though they do hear appeals, of course.

You would think that by now, the Coalition and the Department of Public Service would have figured out that this case is very unlikely to succeed.  Parentau and I said virtually the same thing on the radio segment.  In other words, thoughtful people on both sides of the controversy have concluded that it is not worth bringing this case to the Vermont Supreme Court at this time.

You would think the intervenor and Department of Public Service would understand how courts work and not waste money on this sort of thing.

Reporters or Courts?

My personal opinion is that that the people bringing the suit aren't dumb.  They don't care if they win, and they don't expect to win.  They want the publicity, and they are getting it.

Even this blog post is de facto part of their publicity.

Sigh.

Taking Time Off

I'm taking a few days off, dear readers!

Happy Hanukkah!

Hanukiah, from Wikipedia

Howard Shaffer in Debate Today 9 a.m. EST

On NHPR today, at 9  a.m. EST, Howard Shaffer will debate Ray Shadis of New England Coalition (NEC). That's a few minutes from now.

Here's a link to the NHPR announcement, and you can listen on the web by clicking on the appropriate link in the lower left hand corner.

http://www.nhpr.org/post/vermont-yankee-debate-heats

NEC began fighting Vermont Yankee before it opened, and recently asked the Vermont Supreme Court to shut down the plant.

http://www.reformer.com/localnews/ci_22126411/nec-asks-vt-supreme-court-shutdown-vy

Update: you can now listen to the broadcast and comment on the program at the NHPR site.

Radio Days: Podcast from Massachusetts and on the air in Vermont

On Tuesday Morning, Richard Schmidt and I debated Vermont Yankee's future against Michael J. Daley and Jeff Napolitano.  The debate was on WHMP radio, broadcasting from Northampton, Massachusetts.

Today, the podcast of the debate is on-line.  Also, there's a nice photo gallery of the debate.  I will write about this debate more in the future, but right now, I wanted to put up the links and thank WHMP for hosting it.

I can't write more now because I am going to be on the radio again later this morning, this time broadcasting from Waterbury, Vermont. From 11 a..m. to 12 noon, I will be on WDEV(AM 550, FM 96.1).  I will be on the Rob Roper Common Sense Radio Show.  This show is sponsored by the Ethan Allen Institute, which also sponsors the Energy Education Project that I direct.  Rob Roper is also the editor and force behind the web site True North Reports, which is always worth reading.  

Vermont Yankee Power Struggle: Radio Forum on April 24th

Richard Schmidt and I will be on a radio show about Vermont Yankee on Tuesday morning next week. There will be two people in favor of the plant (Richard and I) and two who are opposed to its continued operation. The two opponents are a long-time opponent, Michael Daley, and a trainer with the American Friends Service Committee, Jeff Napolitano. I have met neither of them. A slightly edited version of the announcement is below. We will be broadcasting from Northampton, MA.

A link to a guest post by Richard Schmidt about strontium in fish.

---------

The goal of the radio program is to focus on the issues surrounding the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, including the current court battle regarding licensing between VT Yankee and the State of Vermont, safety issues, environmental concerns, economic/employment issues, as well as energy supply matters.

The program will be live, and also recorded for a podcast at WHMP.com, which you can feel free to link to. Excerpts from the program will also be used in WHMP newscasts. Questions from callers and/or those in attendance at Sylvester’s will be entertained.

The forum will be a live, two hour broadcast on WHMP Radio with frequencies at AM1400/1240/1600 and FM96.9, covering the Northampton, Greenfield, and Springfield radio markets. The broadcast will take place from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. on Tuesday, April 24th from Sylvester’s Restaurant at 111 Pleasant St. in downtown Northampton. http://www.sylvestersrestaurant.com.

The hosts of the program will be WHMP staffers:

• Bob Flaherty, Morning Show host
• Denise Vozella, News Director
• Bill Newman, Host of the Bill Newman Show (9 a.m. talk show)
• Mary Serreze, Reporter for WHMP and Northamptonmedia.com.

Panelists for this program will be:

• Meredith Angwin, Member of the American Nuclear Society, Nuclear energy expert, Blogger for Yes Vermont Yankee. http://yesvy.blogspot.com/
• Richard Schmidt, Chemical and Nuclear Engineer, resident of Westmoreland, NH
• Michael Daley, lifelong opponent of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant and a clean energy advocate. He lives in a solar-powered home in Westminster West, Vt.
• Jeff Napolitano, Director of the American Friends Service Committee in Western Mass, which hosts the Nuclear Free Coalition, and trainer for the anti-nuclear SAGE Alliance.

Energy Education Project Hosts Gwyneth Cravens in Vermont Thursday

The Energy Education Project: Gwyneth Cravens Visit to Vermont This Thursday

On Thursday, January 20, the Ethan Allen Institute Energy Education Project will host Gwyneth Cravens, author of Power to Save the World. She will appear in Vermont, and Vermont needs to hear her reasoned message about nuclear power at this crucial time. Her thoughtful approach and clarity of expression is an important antidote to the overblown energy rhetoric of recent months.

Cravens will appear at several events on Thursday, two of which are free and open to the public. Ethan Allen Institute Energy Education Project is proud to have arranged this visit.

The first event is a State House Round table. At 12:15 p.m., Cravens will speak at the Montpelier Statehouse. We will provide a complimentary copy of her book, Power to Save the World, to Vermont legislators. The Round Table event is open to the public, and we hope to see many non-legislators (as well as legislators) in attendance. The announcement for this event is at the right, including the coupon which legislators have received.

At 7 p.m., Cravens will speak in Burlington, at the Ethan Allen Institute Sheraton Economics series at the Sheraton Burlington Emerald Ballroom. This Economics Series talk is free and open to the public. At this event, her book will be available for sale and book-signing. The announcement for this event is at the top of this blog post.

Cravens will also appear at a few smaller venues, such as the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics at University of Vermont. Due to space restrictions, these talks are not open to the public.

As usual, double-click the graphics to enlarge them.

If you want to know more about Cravens approach, you can follow the links below to hear Cravens on a recent Vermont talk radio show: the Mark Johnson Show.

Mark Johnson Show Part 1

Mark Johnson Show Part 2

I have also appeared on several radio shows to discuss her upcoming visit.

Cravens' talks in Burlington and Montpelier will give you an opportunity to ask questions of a knowledgeable pro-nuclear speaker. Your questions are probably the same questions Cravens considered when she started out. She was very skeptical of nuclear energy. She changed her mind through years of study, travel, and interviews with scientists. Cravens combines knowledge with clarity in a very approachable way. This is an excellent opportunity to learn why nuclear power is indeed, Power to Save the World.

I hope that many of you will be able to attend.

NOTE: Most of this blog post is a copy of an email I sent to Energy Education Project supporters. Just for fun, I include a picture of myself at a radio show yesterday morning.