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.

Guest Post by Howard Shaffer: Vermont Yankee, What's In It for Us?

This Guest Post by Howard Shaffer has appeared as an op-ed in several local papers and websites, such as Vermont Digger and The Brattleboro Reformer.  I am please to print it here, with some updates (noted below).

---------

Ever since Vermont utilities stopped buying power from Vermont Yankee in March, people who care about our energy future have been asking the question: What's in it for us, now? Why should energy consumers care if Vermont Yankee continues to operate?

In late June, a New England energy expert answered this question decisively and in depth. Jeffrey Tranen holds graduate degrees in electrical engineering from MIT. He had a distinguished career as a senior executive for energy transmission companies (but not Entergy, owner of Vermont Yankee). He chaired a founding committee of ISO-New England, the organization charged with overseeing the region's power supply. He is an energy-industry expert of the highest level.

In written testimony to the Vermont Public Service Board on behalf of Entergy's application for a Certificate of Public Good, Tranen identified four distinct ways that Vermonters may benefit from Vermont Yankee' s continued operation.

First, Vermont's ratepayers would receive between $9 million and $171 million over the next decade, thanks to a revenue-sharing agreement between the state's utilities and Yankee. According to that agreement, utility customers will receive a share of the plant's revenue whenever it sells power above a certain price, as long as the plant continues to operate.

Second, the continued operation of Vermont Yankee will likely result in lower electricity rates for all customers of utilities that purchase their power off the New England grid (including Vermont's); however, the specific amount of savings depends on the actual cost of market power. This has been true historically, because nuclear power has a low, stable price, compared to other types of energy.

Carbon in the raw

Third, an operational, carbon-emissions-free Yankee will lead to continued reductions in ratepayers' carbon-related costs. The multi-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative charges a hefty penalty to states that generate electricity from polluting fossil fuels. So, the more fossil fuels that New England generators burn, the bigger the bill for ratepayers.

Fourth, keeping Vermont Yankee online will continue to prevent generation shortages, while also increasing fuel diversity on the grid. Baseload power sources (such as Yankee) play a vital role in preventing transmission losses by balancing out irregularities in generation from intermittent power sources like solar and wind. The smoother the transmission system runs, the less the power costs.

Tranen's testimony is focused on benefits to ratepayers alone and doesn't even touch on the stupendous economic and social benefit of 1,000-plus jobs and $15 million in annual state and local revenue. His full remarks are available at
http://www.energyeai.org/endkt7862prefiled_testimony.pdf

What can opponents say to this? Certainly they can engage in the same-old scare tactics, corporate xenophobia, or ad hominem attacks on Tranen's motivations and credentials. What they can' t do -- although I'd like to see them try -- is factually, favorably compare the economic and environmental impacts from shutting down Vermont Yankee to the benefits of its continued operation, as described above by Tranen. His expert testimony makes an undeniable point: If Vermont Yankee stays open, ratepayers will benefit.
-------
Howard Shaffer, PE, is a nuclear engineer, licensed in Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Illinois, with degrees in electrical (Duke) and nuclear (MIT) engineering, and service as a nuclear submarine engineer officer. He was a start-up engineer at Vermont Yankee and other plants. He is on the board of advisers for the Energy Education Project of the Ethan Allen Institute, and is Coordinator for the American Nuclear Society's Vermont Grass Roots Project.

-------

Updates:

• All emphasis (bold lettering) added by Meredith Angwin
• Tranen's degree is a Graduate of Electrical Engineering, which is a degree M.I.T awards beyond the Master's degree but before the Ph.D.  The degree was earlier reported as a Ph.D.  
• The Public Service Board website has fallen behind.  They have not yet mounted docket 7862 (that's the new docket for the Vermont Yankee Certificate of Public Good).  Testimony on this docket was pre-filed in June, but the docket is not up yet.  I obtained Tranen's testimony and placed it on the website of the Energy Education Project of the Ethan Allen Institute.  The Public Service Board received the testimony in late June (that's the date) and others also received it, including me, Howard, probably media people, etc.  So I had a copy available to post.  All these filings are public documents, but our state has not posted any filings on docket 7682 yet.  (Okay, I AM hoping the Public Service Board will read this and put up the docket and the documents very quickly!)