Nuclear Spent Fuel Challenges: Guest post by Martin Cohn

Dry Casks at Vermont Yankee
Photo courtesy of Entergy

Within the next four years, Entergy has announced that it plans to close two more of its nuclear power plants. James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant in Oswego County, New York, and Pilgrim Nuclear Power Generating Station in Plymouth, Massachusetts, will join Vermont Yankee in Vernon, Vermont, in moving towards decommissioning.

Among the challenges Entergy will face is spent fuel storage.

According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, commercial nuclear power production in the U.S. has generated over 70,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel—fuel that has been irradiated and removed from nuclear reactors—and the inventory is increasing by about 2,200 metric tons per year. This high-level waste is extremely radioactive and needs to be isolated and shielded to protect human health and the environment. In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, assigning the federal government’s long-standing responsibility for disposal of spent nuclear fuel to the U.S. Department of Energy. Although the DOE was to begin accepting spent fuel by January 31, 1998, the nation remains without a repository for disposal after spending decades and billions of dollars to research potential sites for permanent disposal, including Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Instead, it is currently being stored primarily at the sites where it was generated.

In the absence of a national repository and as spent nuclear fuel continues to accumulate at individual reactor sites, Entergy and other power plant owners have been forced to contend with the continued on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel in spent fuel pools and dry cask storage when the pools’ storage capacity is reached. Spent nuclear fuel usually cools for at least several years in a pool before it is transferred into either a vertical or horizontal dry storage system. The cooled fuel is then loaded into canisters, which are then filled with helium, sealed and tested to confirm that the canister is leak tight in accordance with ASME pressure vessel standards. A loaded canister is transferred from the transfer container into a storage overpack or cask (large steel cylindrical structures) that contains high-density concrete for radiation shielding and ventilation openings for cooling of the canister. The casks are placed on a concrete storage pad that is part of an independent spent fuel storage installation, or ISFSI. The casks are monitored to confirm that the vents at the top and bottom of the outer cask are not blocked so that air can circulate and therefore remove the heat generated by the fuel.

At the Vermont Yankee plant, for example, the spent fuel pool began nearing maximum storage capacity in the mid-2000s, and Entergy needed to construct a dry storage facility in order to continue plant operations. Under Vermont state law, the Vermont Public Service Board has the authority to review proposals for the construction of any new spent nuclear fuel storage facilities in the state. This required plant owner Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (ENVY) to apply to the Public Service Board for a Certificate of Public Good (CPG) to construct a dry fuel storage facility at Vermont Yankee.

In 2006, after a litigated administrative proceeding, the Vermont Public Service Board issued an order approving ENVY’s petition to construct a dry fuel storage facility at Vermont Yankee. A concrete pad, 76 feet by 132 feet, was subsequently constructed that could accommodate 36 dry casks supplied by Holtec International. Dry loading campaigns occurred in 2008, 2011 and 2012 in which 13 dry casks were placed on the pad.

On August 27, 2013, Entergy announced that it would permanently cease operations at Vermont Yankee by the end of 2014. The reactor shutdown occurred on December 29, 2014. By mid-January of 2015, all nuclear fuel was removed from the reactor and placed in the spent fuel pool.

In June, 2014, ENVY filed another petition before the Vermont PSB to construct a second ISFSI storage pad to store the spent nuclear fuel that remained in the VY spent fuel pool. The need for the second pad continues due to the absence of Department of Energy performance in transferring the fuel from VY to a federal repository. Entergy expects to complete transferring fuel from the spent fuel pool to the ISFSI in 2020. Once the final loading campaign has been completed, ENVY expects to reduce the protected area to the area surrounding the two ISFSI pads to reduce the security costs that will be funded from the nuclear decommissioning trust. The proposed second ISFSI storage pad would be 76 feet by 93 feet and built 30 feet immediately to the west of the existing ISFSI storage pad and would continue to use the same system that was previously approved by the PSB for dry cask storage of spent fuel on site.

ENVY has asked that the approval of the Certificate of Public Good be granted in May 2016. If this occurs, then construction of the second ISFSI can be completed in 2017 at the same time casks are being loaded on the first ISFSI pad. This will ensure complete transfer of all spent fuel to dry casks by the end of 2020.

ENVY is funding the costs for the construction of the second ISFSI pad, procurement of dry storage systems and transfer of the fuel from the spent fuel pool to the ISFSI through two revolving credit facilities totaling approximately $145 million. ENVY plans to repay borrowings on these credit facilities with funds recovered in litigation from the DOE for breach of its contract to remove spent nuclear fuel from the VY Station.

Franklin Orr, Under Secretary for Science and Energy, recently wrote, "According to consensus in the scientific community, geological repositories--which would store nuclear material deep within the earth’s surface in safe, scientifically proven locations—represent the safest and most cost-effective method for permanently disposing of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The first step for commercial spent fuel begins with developing a pilot interim storage facility that will mainly accept used nuclear fuel from reactors that have already been shut down. The purpose of a pilot facility is to begin the process of accepting spent fuel from utilities, while also developing and perfecting protocols and procedures for transportation and storage of nuclear waste. It is our goal that throughout the process of developing a pilot interim facility that the Department of Energy builds trust with all of the local communities involved."

Full decommissioning and site restoration of the VY and other shutdown plant sites cannot take place until the used fuel is removed by the DOE. The DOE has collected over $10 billion from nuclear plant owners to construct and operate a spent fuel repository without taking any spent fuel. In 1987, Congress designated Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a national disposal site. Over twenty years later, however, President Obama abandoned the project. It is imperative that Congress acts to find a solution for the used fuel issue because a reactor licensee cannot fully decommission a licensed reactor site until the spent fuel has been removed from the site. In the meantime, Entergy and other plant owners must continue to store the spent fuel on-site in a safe, cost effective manner.

----

This guest post is by Martin Cohn, Senior Communications Specialist at Vermont Yankee. This post first appeared as an article in Nuclear Power International Magazine, January-February 2016. It also appears in Power Engineering Magazine, February 16, 2016

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.

PSB and the Certificate: Powerless and Petulant

Spillway at HQ dam
Vermont's source of electricity

On March 28, the Public Service Board (PSB) issued a Certificate of Public Good (CPG) for the final year of operation of Vermont Yankee. I quickly posted a preliminary review of the ruling:  Board Issues CPG to Vermont Yankee through 2014.  In that post, I noted that I had not yet read the entire 97 page document.

So now I have read it.  I think it was an appalling document for a "quasi-judicial" body to issue.  Feel free to read the nearly-100-pages yourself, especially if you want to go through a document page by page, rebutting half the sentences.

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

The Board Admits to Being Powerless

In August 2013, when Entergy announced it would close Vermont Yankee, many people noticed that the Public Service Board had just lost most of its power over the plant.

Opponents urged the PSB to put as many constraints as possible on the final certificate because it would be the state's last chance to regulate the plant.   Similarly, Vermont Business Magazine wrote that decommissioning of VY was a federal issue, and the state might have very little to say about it. This editorial suggested that a willingness to deal with Entergy in earlier days might have led to a better outcome about decommissioning. (My blog post Looking Back Toward Decommissioning covers this.)

Time went by, and in December 2013, the state and Entergy reached an agreement about the final year of Vermont Yankee's operation and about some aspects of decommissioning.  The agreement was  embodied in the Settlement Agreement and the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding). The PSB needed to accept or reject this agreement by the end of March, or the agreement would no longer be valid. (Reasons the Public Service Board  Should Approve the CPG for Vermont Yankee.)

On March 29, the PSB ruled. In its ruling,  the PSB admitted it was pretty much powerless to change the end date of plant operation, anyway. On page 4 of the ruling:  The value of these benefits [benefits of accepting the Settlement and MOU] is complemented by the short duration of the permission we are granting Entergy VY. This limited period of time is likely not longer than the interval of time we would have allowed Entergy VY for winding up its operations had we decided, in the absence of the MOU, to deny the Company's request to extend its time for operating in Vermont.

In other words, the PSB would have to grant VY about the same time to wind up operations whether the PSB ruled for or against the MOU.  So the PSB figured they might as well rule for the MOU, because the MOU included cash benefits to the state.

The MOU specified many payments from Entergy to various funds in the state of Vermont. Shortly after the Board issued the CPG, the first of these payments from Entergy arrived: two million dollars for community development to the state Agency of Commerce and Community Development.

Powerlessness Turns the Board Petulant

In my opinion, the ruling has many examples of petulance. My paraphrase of the ruling: "They ran that plant and they made power and they paid their taxes and everything....but they did us wrong.  They didn't play fair.  They are not fair partners. They didn't always give us the right information.  No they didn't.  Not every time. Okay, we know, they DID make power, but so what, huh?"

As Will Darlymple at Nuclear Engineering International said: this order was grudging at best, scathing at worst. In contrast, plant opponents were delighted with the tone of the order, as you can read in an opponent op-ed in The Commons: What was surprising is how loathe the Public Service Board was to grant Entergy “fair partner” status, as has been widely reported in the press.

The ruling is amazingly repetitive on the theme that Entergy is not a "fair partner" for Vermont.

Page 5 refers to the  The Company's sustained record of misconduct has been troubling to observe over the years and has continued to trouble us as we determine whether to grant Entergy VY a license to operate. If Entergy VY were planning to operate the VY Station for another twenty years as originally requested, its track record may well have led us to find that ownership and operation would not promote the general good.

This focus on Entergy "misconduct" continues on pages 31 to 44. These pages explain that Entergy cannot be a Fair Partner to the state. The "Fair Partner" section is by far the longest section in the ruling, including (page 41) the statement that  This history is troubling and falls well below the level of conduct the Board expects of utilities authorized to conduct business in the State.

In other parts of the ruling, brief sections mention that Entergy paid taxes, made power reliably, gave the state Nuclear Engineer access to the plant, etc.  But the longest section is about "Entergy was not a fair partner."

Not a "Fair Partner" or a Petulant Board?

Well, did the Board have good reason to believe Entergy was not a fair partner?  Or were they just being petulant, as I claim?

The Board's reasons for saying that Entergy was"not a fair partner"  were basically wrong. Entergy was not perfect, but "not a fair partner" is an over-the-top judgement for the flaws that Entergy had. However, it will take at least one more blog post to show this. You can't answer 97 pages in a short blog post!

My follow-on posts are partially drafted.  But like the Board ruling, this present post is....long enough.

UPDATE:  Howard Shaffer has just posted a more complete assessment of the ruling at ANS Nuclear Cafe: A Pyrrhic Victory in Vermont for Nuclear Power?   I encourage you to read it!

Reasons the Public Service Board Should Approve the CPG for Vermont Yankee: Guest Post by Guy Page of VTEP

Five Reasons Why the Vermont Public Service Board Should Approve
the Certificate of Public Good for Vermont Yankee

A Settlement Agreement announced on December 23, 2013 by Gov. Peter Shumlin, Attorney General William Sorrell, the State of Vermont, and Entergy recommends that the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) approve the Certificate of Public Good (CPG) for Vermont Yankee to continue to operate until the end of 2014. The plant’s continued operation through the year will help to ensure a smooth transition of Vermont Yankee to a closed, decommissioning power facility. Without approval of the CPG, the Settlement Agreement will likely be nullified. The following are five reasons why the PSB should approve the CPG by its deadline of March 31, 2014.

The proposed CPG…

1. Enjoys broad support and resolves major legal and economic quagmires

Both the State of Vermont and Entergy support the Settlement Agreement and the CPG. Without a CPG, the Vermont Yankee situation will revert to the pre-December 23 status of expensive legal wrangling, job uncertainty for plant employees, no cash for economic development or renewable power, and no agreement on decommissioning.

2. Prompts an accelerated decommissioning and enables enactment of a prompt, detailed decommissioning plan

The agreement establishes the potential for  a more prompt decommissioning and site restoration than would otherwise be required by federal law. Entergy commits to filing a site assessment by December 31, 2014 – many months sooner than required by federal law – and featuring evaluation of the costs of both SAFSTOR (extended) and DECON (more prompt) decommissioning.

3. Will release millions of dollars for site restoration

Within 30 days of the issuance of the CPG, Entergy has agreed to establish a separate site restoration trust fund with an initial deposit of $10 million.  This is the first installment of $25 million that will be provided by 2017.

4. Helps transition Vermont to a renewable energy future

Within 30 days of the issuance of the CPG, Entergy has agreed to contribute $5.2 million into the Vermont Clean Energy Development Fund, with half of this money earmarked for the benefit of Windham County.

5. Provides a boost for the economy

For each of the next five years – 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 – Entergy has agreed to pay $2 million per year to the State of Vermont to promote economic development in Windham County. By April 15, 2015, Entergy has agreed to make a $5 million tax payment to the State of Vermont.

---------

The Vermont Energy Partnership (www.vtep.org) is a diverse group of more than 90 business, labor, and community leaders committed to finding clean, affordable and reliable electricity solutions.  Its mission is to educate policy makers, the media, businesses, and the general public about why electricity is imperative for prosperity, and about the optimal solutions to preserve and expand our electricity network.  Entergy, owner of Vermont Yankee, is a member of the Vermont Energy Partnership.

Infographic from VTEP, used by permission.

Blog post by Guy Page of VTEP, who is a frequent guest blogger at this blog.

Meredith Angwin's earlier post on this subject is The Proposed Entergy Settlement is Good for Vermont.  

The Proposed Entergy Settlement is Good for Vermont

The Proposed Settlement

The state of Vermont and Entergy Corporation have been battling each other for years, but the two parties reached an agreement in December about the future of Vermont Yankee. Entergy has owned and operated the 42-year-old nuclear plant in Vernon since 2002. When Entergy announced plans to close the plant by December 2014, the state, which has passed laws aimed at preventing the plant from operating, seemed surprised. It also lost some negotiating leverage. Even so, the settlement, which the Vermont Public Service Board must still approve, is a good deal for Vermont — better than I thought possible. Let’s take a look its four main points: the Certificate of Public Good; pending lawsuits; payments; and decommissioning.

The Certificate of Public Good: In 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission renewed Vermont Yankee’s federal license for 20-year-period, through 2032. However, to keep operating for that period, the plant also needed state approval, specifically a Certificate of Public Good from the Public Service Board. The Shumlin administration vigorously opposed granting such a certificate, and used the state approval process to try to force the plant to shut down when its original license expired. Now that Entergy has amended its petition to operate only through the end of this year, not through 2032, the state will be on Entergy’s side before the Public Service Board.

Lawsuits: The main federal lawsuit hinged on whether Vermont interfered in the federal regulation of nuclear safety. In both district court and in appeals court, Entergy won its case, arguing that the Legislature attempted to regulate nuclear safety when the state Senate voted in 2010 to deny the plant a certificate of public good. Nuclear safety, like airline safety and drug safety, is regulated at the federal level. Though Entergy won its case, both Vermont and Entergy conceivably had grounds to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Now, according to the agreement, neither side will appeal. I suspect both sides breathed a sigh of relief.

The agreement also settled another lawsuit about a new “generation tax.” The state had raised the generation tax on Vermont Yankee to $12 million a year. This is a tax paid by Entergy for every kilowatt-hour that the plant generates. However, the higher tax rate applied only to power plants that were built after 1965 and were larger than 200 megawatts! Of course, there’s only one such plant in the state, and Entergy quite reasonably felt targeted. In the agreement, Entergy agreed to drop this suit and to pay the $12 million for 2014.

Payments: Entergy agreed to pay more than the new generation tax. In 2015, the plant won’t be generating any power, so Entergy won’t be required to pay the generation tax. However, Entergy agreed to pay the state $5 million in 2015, to help the state as it deals with the loss tax revenue Vermont Yankee generated. Entergy also agreed to other relatively short-term payments: a payment of $5 million to the Clean Energy Development Fund, and a further payment of $2 million a year for five years to help Windham County adapt to the plant closing.

In his address on the state budget, Gov. Peter Shumlin mentioned “one-time payments” from Entergy as part of his plan to close the state’s budget gap.

The state appears to have won the financial negotiations. However, the plant closing means that $60 million a year in payroll will disappear from the local economy. These payments hardly begin to close that gap for Vermont and neighboring states. As I have said before, it would have been far better if the plant remained open. Some people say that decommissioning will be a similar boost to the local economy, but it won’t be. Not in the next few years at least.

Decommissioning: This has been, and remains, the most difficult and contentious part of the agreement. When Entergy bought the plant in 2002, the agreement it signed with the state allows Entergy to use a delayed decommissioning plan called SAFSTOR, approved by the NRC. With
SAFSTOR, decommissioning can take up to 60 years but it could also be completed sooner. The state wanted to decommission the plant sooner, much sooner  —  immediately, as a matter of fact.

However, in the course of the negotiations, I suspect the state learned some facts about decommissioning. Decommissioning cannot start for six or more years after the plant is closed. After the plant is shut down, the last fuel from the reactor is placed in a spent-fuel pool. This fuel must cool in the pool for five years before it can be removed and put into dry-cask storage. In plants such as Vermont Yankee, the fuel pool is in the same building as the reactor.

You can’t begin tearing down the building while the fuel pool is still in use. So there has to be at least a five-year delay between plant closing and the beginning of major decommissioning work. Therefore, there will be a gap of several years in the economic activity around the plant. In the agreement, Entergy agreed to move the fuel from the pool in a timely fashion. In the press conference about the recent agreement, Shumlin said that all fuel bundles should probably be moved into dry cask storage within about seven years.

Maine Yankee dry cask storage

Other major decommissioning work can begin after the fuel is moved to dry casks. The decommissioning fund is around $580 million now, and decommissioning is estimated to cost between $600 million and $1 billion. Entergy agreed to start full decommissioning when the fund is large enough to to pay for the job. (Federal rules for SAFSTOR stipulate that owners can wait up to 60 years to complete decommissioning, no matter how big the fund.) Entergy also agreed to put $25 million into a separate fund for “greenfielding” the site. Greenfielding generally involves excavating, grading and seeding.

The Next Steps

Of course, not everyone is happy with the agreement. Opponents loudly insist that decommissioning must start immediately (it can’t), and others worry that it will take years for Entergy to have enough funds to start decommissioning. The definition of “greenfielding” is also contentious.

Even so, the agreement is a major step forward in what has been a hard battle between Vermont Yankee and the state. Both are arguing in favor of this agreement before the Public Service Board. That’s quite an unexpected development. Either side could withdraw from this agreement if the Public Service Board does not approve it by March 31, however. The board is now considering this plan, and the public comment period is still open. At the PSB website, you can read docket 7862 and write your comments. I encourage you to do so.

--------

Here is a direct link to the comment form on this docket.

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

When reading docket 7862, you will note that there are two major document filings: the Memorandum of Understanding and the Settlement Agreement.  The Settlement Agreement is the agreement between Entergy and the state agencies, while the Memorandum of Understanding is the part of the Settlement Agreement that lies within the jurisdiction of the Public Service Board. The Board will rule on the Memorandum, but the Settlement Agreement was filed for informational purposes.


------------
The article above is an op-ed that I wrote (plus a short end section on links).

The op-ed has been published in the Valley News, True North Reports, and Vermont Digger.  It may also be published other places in Vermont. 

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.

Supporting State Science Education: PSB Comments by Carlos Pinkham

You can still comment to the Public Service Board

Science Fair
from Wikipedia

This is one of a series of posts containing  people's comments to the Public Service Board about the Vermont Yankee agreement. The comments describe some of the reasons the Board should grant a Certificate of Public Good (CPG) to Vermont Yankee.

I hope these examples will inspire you to write your own  comment to the board.   Here's the link for comments.

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

Comment by Dr. Carlos Pinkham

Dr. Carlos Pinkham
Making his statement at PSB hearing
November 2012

I would like to address one small, but for Vermont, significant aspect of the public good served by Entergy Vermont Yankee (EVY).  The Vermont State Science and Mathematics Fair (VSSMF) is the premier STEM competition in the state for grades 5-12.  Each year it awards nearly $1,000,000 in scholarships to Vermont Colleges and Universities. It also awards prizes and trips to compete in national and international STEM competitions by our best students and their teachers.

VSSMF is an all-volunteer organization.  For the past seven of the 10 years the VSSMF has been affiliated with these national and international competitions, EVY has been one of our biggest supporters, providing 6% of our $25,000 annual budget and two to six judges.

Nothing can impact Vermont more significantly than inspiring its youth to get excited about STEM.  I propose that for this reason alone, EVY should be granted the amended Certificate of Public Good.

Carlos F. A. Pinkham, PhD

Co-Director, VSSMF

------

Carlos Pinkham is Professor Emeritus of Biology at Norwich University.  Courses taught included Environmental Biology.  Former Environmental Science Officer and Senior Consultant for Army Reserve and National Guard Preventive Medicine Science Officers. 

Clean Energy plus Development Money. PSB Comments by Milton Eaton

You can still comment to the Public Service Board

This is one of a series of posts containing  people's comments to the Public Service Board about the Vermont Yankee agreement. The comments describe some of the reasons the Board should grant a Certificate of Public Good (CPG) to Vermont Yankee.  

I hope these examples will inspire you to write your own  comment to the board.   Here's the link for comments.

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

Comment by Milton Eaton

Dear Vermont Public Service Board:

As a longtime public servant with over 50 years experience in energy and economic management, I am in full support of the Certificate of Public Good (CPG) for Vermont Yankee.

Your approval of the CPG will assure all the New England states another year of low-cost, clean, reliable electricity from one of its base load merchant plants.  This is a matter of increasing importance, as the grid's operators are now warning of a looming supply shortfall.

Closer to home, approval of the CPG will enable Brattleboro and Windham County to receive the proposed Entergy economic development money totaling $10 million over five years. This is the result of a good-faith effort by State and Entergy leaders to offset the terrible economic loss that will occur when the plant closes by the end of 2014.   In fact, I understand the December 2013, Entergy/Vermont proposed settlement is entirely contingent on CPG approval.

Without the CPG, Vermont loses not only the $10 million in economic development funding, but also $5 million earmarked for clean energy development. It also risks reversion to the lamentable legal state of affairs in which the two parties were engaged before the agreement.

Gov. Shumlin said the settlement was a good Christmas present for the people of Windham County. (Note by blogger...the settlement was announced on December 23.)

Please approve the CPG and thereby insure the continuation of this important agreement. 

Thank you

Milton Eaton,
Brattleboro, VT

------

Milton Eaton has had a distinguished career as a public servant, including serving as Cabinet Secretary of Development and Community Affairs for the State of Vermont.  At the federal level, he was East Asia Representative to the Department of Energy and Energy Attaché at the American Embassy in Tokyo. In the private sector, Eaton founded a five-office business brokerage firm, based in Brattleboro.

My Comment to the PSB in Support of Vermont Yankee

Opponents and supporters of Vermont Yankee
Court house, Brattleboro  Sept 27, 2011

There is still time to comment

The Vermont Public Service Board is still accepting comments in favor of granting a Certificate of Public Good for the last few months of Vermont Yankee's operation.  Here's the link for your comment:  http://psb.vermont.gov/docketsandprojects/public-comment?docket=7862


Meredith Angwin's Comment to the Public Service Board

I am a supporter of Vermont Yankee.

I remember standing on the streets of Brattleboro while the federal court case was underway.  I held up my "Vermont Yankee" sign and the opponents held up signs saying "I support Vermont."

In those days, it was "Vermont Yankee" versus "Vermont."

Vermont Yankee supporters on Sept 27, 2011

That was then and this is now.

Vermont and Vermont Yankee have come to an agreement. This agreement will provide an orderly shut-down of the plant, support for Windham County and plant employees, and an end to lawsuits.

Vermont and Vermont Yankee are on the same side now.

Please support the state agencies of Vermont AND the workers of Vermont Yankee. Grant a Certificate of Public Good based on the state agreement with Vermont Yankee.

Meredith Angwin

Wilder, Vermont

----------

This is one of a series of posts: people's comments to the Public Service Board in favor of granting a Certificate of Public Good (CPG) to Vermont Yankee for its final year of operation.

I hope these posts will inspire you to write YOUR  comment to the board. http://psb.vermont.gov/docketsandprojects/public-comment?docket=7862

For more information on the Public Service Board hearings and the Memorandum of Understanding, see the blog post Take Action: Comments to the Public Service Board.  It has many links to background information.

Yesterday's post was John McClaughry's excellent comment about whether Entergy could trust the state of Vermont.

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.

Be Prompt and Positive with Vermont Yankee: Guest Post by Patty O'Donnell

Patty O'Donnell speaking to Public Service Board
November 2012

Prompt, positive Vermont Yankee decision benefits everyone

By Patricia O’Donnell, Chair
Vernon Board of Selectmen


For the sake of the residents of Vernon, I strongly encourage the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) allow Vermont Yankee and the State of Vermont to come to an equitable agreement, and issue a clean Certificate of Public Good (CPG) at the end of this year guaranteeing Vermont Yankee’s continued operation until late 2014. An unburdened CPG will provide much-needed and much-warranted economic and environmental certainty and will give all stakeholders the unobstructed opportunity to plan for the future.

As an elected representative of Vernon – a town now facing the loss of its largest employer and taxpayer, significant budget cuts, and mounting questions about its financial footing – I hope the Public Service Board will at least grant us this gift of clarity as we continue the difficult task of planning for life without Vermont Yankee.

Vernon and its residents deserve to know whether Vermont Yankee will continue to operate through next year. A prompt decision by the PSB will allow us to clearly anticipate and navigate the road through 2014 and beyond, and help to ease the financial blow to our school system, our police departments and other local services resulting from the loss of this crucial revenue source.

It is equally important for the Public Service Board to pursue a course that is both fair and equitable and looks to mitigate any further harm. Assigning a tangle of conditions or refusing outright to grant the CPG will only add insult to injury for the people of Vernon – and a contentious ruling will only hinder our efforts to recover from the loss of Vermont Yankee.

For nearly four decades, the town of Vernon, as the host community for this important economic and energy generator, has been integral to Vermont’s strength and sustainability, contributing billions of dollars in tax revenues, billions more in economic benefits, and supporting thousands of jobs statewide.

It is crucial that the PSB act expeditiously and fairly in issuing a decision, and provide some semblance of certainty as we continue through this difficult transition period. The residents of Vernon, indeed all Vermonters, deserve the security of knowing what the future holds.

Note: O'Donnell wrote this before the recent agreement between Entergy and the state.  However, it is still relevant.  The Public Service Board has not ruled yet.

A State of Extortion: Conditions for a Vermont Yankee Certificate

John McClaughry
at a dinner in his honor

The Prediction: John McClaughry

Shortly after Entergy announced it would close Vermont Yankee in 2014, Governor Peter Shumlin decided that people should work together, not fight with each other.  Specifically, Shumlin said that his administration would “use this opportunity to build better relations with Entergy.”

John McClaughry doubted that statement.  McClaughry is one of the founders of the Ethan Allen Institute, and he predicted that better relations between Entergy and Shumlin were not going to happen.  Better relations weren't in the cards (to use a fortune-teller analogy).   Governor Shumlin would continue to behave the way Governor Shumlin behaves.  

In early September, a few days after Shumlin's announcement, McClaughry wrote an op-ed which was published many places in Vermont:  Governor Shumlin's Unlikely Olive Branch to Entergy. Here's the quote with the prediction:

With this long, outspoken, and unbroken record of opposition to the nuclear plant and its corporate owner, can we expect Peter Shumlin to now seek “better relations” with Entergy? It’s far more likely that he, his regulators and lawyers, and his legislative friends will spend the rest of his time in the Governor’s office extorting every last dime out of Entergy to fund their own pet projects, and when that is pushed as far as it can go, forcing Entergy to spend as much as possible through more of the “cumulative regulation” that Entergy says contributed to its decision to close the plant.

The Pondering: State Weighs Conditions for Entergy

When Entergy announced it was closing the plant, the state "weighed the conditions" they would put

Commissioner Recchia
from DPS site

on Vermont Yankee's continued operation for a final year. 

The Public Service Board was still considering a Certificate of Public Good (CPG) for Vermont Yankee when Entergy announced it was closing the plant.  Entergy quickly filed an amended petition with the Board, asking for a CPG for through the end of 2014, instead of through 2032.  Under Shumlin's administration, the Department of Public Service (DPS) had opposed the 20-year extension.  Would they also oppose a one-year extension? 

When Entergy filed for a one-year extension,  Chris Recchia, commissioner of the department, said the department was considering its options about the one-year extension. Here's a quote from Andrew Stein's article in Vermont Digger. 

“The options are to support it (the one-year certificate) with conditions or oppose it unless there are conditions,” he (Recchia) said.

The Prediction Fulfilled: Also Known As The Shake-Down

First, we have to admit that the state learned some very expensive lessons in various courts.  The DPS considered recommending a time-table for decommissioning, or recommending how the plant should handle spent fuel.  But then they thought better of it. Recchia noted that these areas fall under the purview of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  

“We felt we needed to focus on areas where we have jurisdiction,” Recchia said.  (From Oct 25 article Terri Hallenbeck in the Burlington Free Press.)

If DPS tried to regulate safety, they could lose in court. Gathering money from Entergy seemed a more reasonable tactic.  DPS recommended that the Public Service Board should extract money from the plant in return for a fourteen month CPG.  Specfically, DPS recommend that Entergy must

• Put $60 million dollars in a separate trust fund for decommissioning within 21 days of receiving a certificate of public good from the state (Anne Galloway article in Vermont Digger)
• Put $4.65 million dollars into a fund "for the state to disburse" for dislocated worker assistance (Terri Hallenbeck  article). 

Another justification given for Entergy contributing $4.65 million to the state is that the state will lose its "generation tax" revenues when Vermont Yankee stops generating power.  As Galloway wrote in Vermont Digger:

"Once the plant closes, that source of state revenue (the generation tax) will disappear. Recchia says Entergy should be required to continue to make some kind of payment to the state to make up for the economic impact of the sudden, unplanned shutdown."

In other words, McClaughry predicted the situation accurately.  The scenario (extract money and attempt to make decommissioning as expensive as possible) is unfolding exactly as McClaughry predicted it would unfold.

Note from blogger: "Sudden unplanned shutdown"?  Huh?

Second note from blogger:  Will these "generation tax" substitutes actually be used for Vermont Yankee employee assistance?  Your guess is as good as mine....

The Good News and the Bad News


Good News:  This is the state's final chance to extract money. In Andrew Stein's article in Vermont Digger (State Weighs What Conditions to Place on Vermont Yankee Closing) Stein quotes Ray Shadis, a long-time plant opponent.

"It is unclear at this point if Entergy VY, if it closes in 2014, will ever have to appear before the VPSB (Vermont Public Service Board), or for that matter, any state regulatory body ever again,” he (Shadis) wrote to the board. “Chopping the proposed period of extended operation really appears to narrow that possibility and proportionally heightens the need for the VPSB and the parties to ‘get it right.’”

Bad News:  It's not really bad news. More like "major uncertainty."  If the Public Service Board puts tens-of-millions-of-dollars of conditions on a certificate of public good, and Entergy had planned to operate the plant only for a few more months--what will Entergy do?  

It may not be worthwhile for Entergy to litigate in the hopes of merely several months operation.  Also, if Entergy doesn't sign the new CPG, they don't have to abide by its multi-million dollar conditions.  In other words, Entergy might quite reasonably decide not to sign, not to litigate, and simply to close the plant a few months earlier. 

I hope this would not happen, but it could. 

"Building better relations with Entergy" indeed!

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

You can link to the complete, 50-page DPS filing from the Vermont Digger article.  I link to it here for convenience. I am always grateful when Vermont Digger links to the original documents. 

John McClaughry, the man who made the prediction, is vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute (www.ethanallen.org). The Energy Education Project (directed by Meredith Angwin) is part of the Ethan Allen Institute.

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!

Comments to the Public Service Board by Tomorrow

Important Update

Appeals Court Rules for Vermont Yankee!

In a sixty-page ruling, the federal appeals court upheld the lower court ruling that the state had overstepped its authority in attempting to shut down Vermont Yankee.

Here's a link to the WCAX story on the ruling, which includes a short video.  Here's a link to the ruling itself.  Here's the AP story by Dave Gram, with some excellent quotes from the ruling.

I have not read the entire ruling, but it apparently affirms the role of the state Public Service Board in approving Vermont Yankee.  So comments to the PSB are still VERY useful and important!  So send in your comments!  Here's the link to the comment form for this docket. http://psb.vermont.gov/docketsandprojects/public-comment?docket=7862



Comments in Favor of a Certificate of Public Good

Howard Shaffer
At a Rally for VY

Vermont Yankee requires a Certificate of Public Good from the Vermont Public Service Board  in order to continue to operate.  The Board is still accepting public comments regarding the petition. The Board does read all the comments.

As far as I can tell, comments will be accepted through the end of the month, but it is best if they are sent by Thursday, August 15. That is TOMORROW.  (The PSB schedule is a bit unclear, and comments may be  accepted later than tomorrow, but better to be safe than sorry.)

Send your comments by tomorrow night, if you can.

You can submit a comment by clicking here.

How to Get Started

Use your own perspective in your comments.  For example, if you are concerned with global warming, you might want to comment about Vermont Yankee's low-carbon electricity.  If you are involved in real estate, you could discuss the impacts the closure of the facility would have on property values in the area.

Please share this link with friends and family and encourage them to voice their support as well.

Short Comments are Fine!

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!  We have some inspirational comments below. 

Peter Lothes
Speaking at November PSB hearing

Inspiration from Others

Here are links to three (of many) inspiring comments made to the Public Service Board in favor of the Certificate.

Dianne Amme's excellent short comment: Affordable, Reliable Electricity 

Peter Lothes comment on Vermont Yankee versus other sources: Power, Carbon and Costs

Lindsay Rose on economics: Young Workers in Windham County

The Importance of Vermont Yankee

Here are some facts about Vermont Yankee that may be helpful to your writing.

Vermont Yankee is a key component of the area's economy and community.  Here are a few reasons why its operation until 2032 is important for the region:

• Vermont Yankee is a valuable employer. It provides more than 600 jobs in the area, and is a key source of clean and affordable electricity for the region.
• Vermont Yankee provides millions of dollars of revenue for state and local government, as well as donating tens of thousands of dollars to local non-profits.
• Vermont Yankee provides both jobs and critical economic activity for the State of Vermont. Closing the plant would undoubtedly cause many young Vermonters to leave the state in search of jobs.
• Vermont Yankee is a clean, low-carbon manufacturer power source and will be a critical element of Vermont's energy future. The plant's ongoing operation can help incorporate new sources of clean and reliable power while stabilizing electric rates.



Dianne Amme speaking
at November PSB hearing

• Unlike coal and gas plants, Vermont Yankee is a very low-carbon energy source.  It also avoids the many types of air pollution (acid gases, particulates) of most other base-load sources of power.

Just Do It!

Make sure the Public Service Board hears what YOU have to say!

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