About Entergy's Decision to Buy Fuel: Shaffer on WCAX and Angwin at ANS Nuclear Cafe

Entergy decided to buy fuel for Vermont Yankee. A good video about the decision shows Howard Shaffer being interviewed at his home on Mascoma Lake by WCAX. Don Kreis of Vermont Law School is also interviewed. Kreis says that plant opponents should not be too overjoyed with the injunction ruling. (Kreis is a plant opponent).

Meanwhile, I have a post on the subject today at ANS Nuclear Cafe. In this post,Vermont Yankee, Refueling, and Solving the Problem of Intermittent Energy Sources, I expand my Vermont Yankee outlook to include New Hampshire. Vermont will purchase power from the Seabrook nuclear plant in New Hampshire. I comment on the fact that a local green-energy company (SustainX) will move to Seabrook to obtain inexpensive power for its operation.

As a bonus, I would like to recommend Shay Totten's blog on the subject (Totten blogs for 7 Days, a Vermont weekly newspaper) and Malt Wald's well-researched blog for the New York Times. Wald quotes Margaret Harding, one of my early Blue Ribbon winners. Harding, a consultant who is a former manager at General Electric's Boiling Water Reactor Owner's Group, is an authority on everything related to BWRs.

Enjoy watching and reading!

Predictions on Vermont Yankee: I Don't Think They Will Order Fuel, and It's All About the Lawsuit

I decided to make some predictions, since everyone else is making predictions about Vermont Yankee. The question:

Will Vermont Yankee order fuel for the October outage?

My Prediction: Vermont Yankee will not order fuel

In a hearing in late June, Vermont Yankee asked the Federal Court in Brattleboro (Judge Murtha) for an injunction to prevent the state from shutting down the plant while the main Entergy v. Vermont lawsuit was in progress. Judge Murtha did not grant the injunction, which means that Vermont Yankee has to make its decision on re-ordering fuel for the October outage without knowing if it will be allowed to operate past March of next year.

Vermont Yankee said that they had to place the fuel order by July 23 to be able to hold the next outage in October. The choices for VY are:

• Order fuel (about $60 million dollars worth) and perhaps not be able to use it because it is 18 months worth of fuel and the plant may be shut down in March (six months after refueling)
• Don't order fuel, and run out of fuel in October

VY was expected to order fuel by July 23. Everyone was waiting to see if they would order. However, on Friday, July 22, Larry Smith of Entergy made this statement to the press: "There will be no announcement from Entergy today about anything," And so the weekend has gone by in silence about the fuel order.

Vermont Yankee opponents disagree on whether or not they will order fuel, but most seem to think they will order it. In a blog post by Terri Hallenbeck at the Burlington Free Press, Arnie Gundersen said that ordering fuel was not actually so big a gamble, because the fuel could be used at a different plant. Bob Stannard, another opponent, expects that VY will buy the fuel and "keep going like nothing happened." Meanwhile, over at Vermont Digger, representatives from another opponent group claim VY hasn't made a profit recently, and it should "know when to fold'em." This group stops short, however, of saying that Entergy will not buy fuel.

It's All About the Ruling

I think they won't order fuel. One assumption opponents seem to make is that Entergy asking for an injunction was a big bluff, and the judge called the bluff. Others predict VY will buy the fuel, and VY asking for an injunction was "all a bluff" or "making threats to the judge" or whatever.

I don't think it was a bluff. I am making my prediction because VY hasn't announced yet. What is the delay?

• Entergy knew its cost structure and the price of fuel ages ago. No new information there.
• The only new information recently was the judge's ruling, which went against Entergy, but also gave reasons to believe he agreed with some of Entergy's arguments.

The judge said Entergy had a business decision to make, complicated by litigation. No. It's all a litigation decision at this point. What did the judge mean in his ruling? Are the judge's statements strong enough to take a $60 million gamble? That is what Entergy has been wrestling with all week, in my opinion.

I think Entergy will take a middle course. They won't order fuel, but they won't throw in the towel, either. They will continue with the litigation, and assuming they win, they will order fuel then.

It seems to take between two and three months to get fuel ordered, but plants can go into lay-up for that length of time. That is expensive, but not killer, if you are going to run for another twenty years. The plant would have a four month outage in October, rather than a one-month outage.

On the other hand, faced with a four-month outage, they might indeed choose not to continue even with the court case. I don't like this scenario, but it is a possible consequence of the judge's ruling.

In other words, I think the judge did "call Entergy's bluff." Except that Entergy wasn't bluffing about the need for the injunction.

My Hope

I hope that today or tomorrow will prove me wrong.

Also: I think people know this, but I think I better re-state it now. I have NO inside information from Entergy. I base my blogs on what I read in the paper and on-line, public meetings I attend, and occasional private emails from people interested in the plant. (These people are not Entergy managers.)

Painting by Mikhail Vrubel, 1905, The Fortune Teller

Facts and Fancies About Refueling Vermont Yankee: Try Try Again

Facts About Refueling

On Wednesday, July 20, Howard Shaffer spoke for a few moments on WCAX about Vermont Yankee refueling. He shared three minutes worth of facts. How long the current fuel will last. How fuel is delivered (on flatbed trucks). Is refueling dangerous? Simple questions and honest answers.

Fancies about Refueling

On Tuesday, July 20, two professors at Vermont Law School (VLS) discussed the court case and the injunction hearings. Donald Kreis and Pat Parentau of VLS were part of a panel sponsored by the anti-Vermont Yankee group, the Safe and Green Campaign. Olga Peters of the Commons reported on this meeting.

At the meeting, Donald Kreis said: “I feel really bad, I love Brattleboro. I love what you folks are doing. I’d love it if Vermont Yankee was banished from the earth.”

(I think "you folks" meant the Safe and Green Campaign.)

Meanwhile, Parentau showed a certain level of confusion, as he had also shown about the sequence of events (Act 160, cooling tower collapse) at Vermont Yankee.

For Profit and Not For Profit

According to the Peters article about Pat Parentau: “We’ve all heard the rumors” that Entergy wants to build an escape hatch that would give the company the ability to say to shareholders, “We fought the good fight,” he said.

As far as I can tell, Mr. Parentau does not repudiate these rumors. However, for-profit companies don't say this sort of thing. They don't need "escape hatches." For-profits don't need to convince shareholders that they fought a good fight, they really tried to tilt at those windmills, but evil forces defeated them. For-profit CEOs simply say that a certain choice wasn't profitable. That's the only justification they need for their course of action.

In contrast, not-for-profits love the "we tried" line, because it can be followed by a line that says "please give us more money."

In a for-profit company, if the new product doesn't work out, or if the division loses money, it is gone. The world of profit-making companies follows Yoda's advice in Star Wars:

"Do or Do Not. There is no 'try'."

Parentau doesn't get the difference.

Parentau Suggests: Try Try Again In the Legislature

If they follow Parentaus advice, the Vermont Legislature will try again.

Cheryl Hanna pointed out that the judge was skeptical of the framing of Act 160, and you can also see Hanna say this in a video on one of my previous blog posts. Hanna also noted that judge thought the legislature was attempting to make laws concerning the federally pre-empted area of radiological safety.

Parentau basically agreed that the judge was skeptical of these things, but he had an idea for a cure. According to the Peters article, Parentau suggested that:

Shumlin should call an emergency legislative session in August to vote up or down on permitting the Public Service Board to decide whether to issue Vermont Yankee’s CPG, he said, and with that vote, “a real clear crisp statement of state policy about why we don’t want a nuclear power plant” should be included.

In other words, if your first law doesn't succeed in standing up to court scrutiny --try, try again.

Ex Post Facto, Anyone?

Now, states do occasionally choose to try to reframe a law that failed in court. But in general, any new law or legal amendment comes AFTER the court has ruled on the original law.

To me, there's a certain contempt-of-the-court attitude shown by Parentau's suggestion. Entergy filed a brief, the State filed a brief, the Court ruled on a preliminary matter (the injunction) and set a date for the full hearing.

Parentau suggests that the Vermont hurry up and pass a new law between now and the full hearing. What would happen? Entergy will have to file a new brief about the new law, the original hearing date will be put off, Entergy will undoubtedly ask for an injunction due to the new circumstances, the judge will have to look at all of this new material.

If I were the judge, I would look at Vermont and say: "Hey guys. What am I over here? Chopped liver? That my work is just tossed out and you are passing a new law, hurry-up? Come on. I think I will start by granting Entergy a permanent injunction, if these are your cute little tricks to prevent a hearing."

Vermont Tiger notes that passing a new law about Vermont Yankee is a bad idea. Geoffrey Norman of the Tiger blames the current heat wave for this suggestion.

It's not the first bad idea of this type that Vermont has had. When Entergy sued, Vermont, the legislature immediately passed a Ex Post Facto law which was also Bill Of Attainder, a law aimed directly at Entergy. This law forced Entergy to pay for the State's portion of the suit. Various people blogged about this blatantly illegal action:

Geoffrey Norman at Vermont Tiger

Cheryl Hanna at Vermont Law School

John McClaughry at Vermont Tiger

But the law still stands, and now Parentau suggests that the legislature passes another such law.

A Good Idea

Well, I'm for it. I think Parentau's idea is great--for my side. Passing a new law would be a clear admission that the legislature messed up with the law it passed to shut down Vermont Yankee. Also, passing a new law insults the judge. Also, passing a new law after a lawsuit is filed is probably ex post facto and therefore illegal.

Just the idea that the state is discussing such a move should provide Entergy with a shot at a permanent injunction against state activity during the lawsuit. I mean, the lawsuit could go on forever, if the legislature changes the law at every break in the court hearings!

Thank you Mr. Parentau. I hope the legislature takes your advice. I'm glad to see you helping Entergy.

Update: DARN IT

Shumlin won't call a special legislative session. Shame on you, Shumlin! It was another chance for an ex post facto attack on Entergy! You should have taken it!!

Will Entergy Buy Fuel for Vermont Yankee? Mixed Signals and Half-full Glasses

Entergy filed for an injunction to prevent the state of Vermont from closing down Vermont Yankee while litigation is pending. This injunction was denied on Monday.

The judge's wording for the injunction ruling caused some people to believe that Entergy will prevail in the main lawsuit, though it lost on the injunction. However, some plant people are talking about selling their houses. This week, Entergy must make a decision whether to order fuel for a November outage. Alternatively, they can NOT order fuel and shut the plant down in the fall. The cost of the fuel and the outage is about $100 million dollars.

In other words, this week Entergy will place a $100 million dollar bet (or not place it) about whether they are think they are going to win the lawsuit.

I'm going to put on two hats, Half-Full and Half-Empty, to discuss Entergy's position and choices.

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

The Law and the Judge's Ruling

Half-Empty: Looks like the plant is history. The first round went to the State: No injunction. Vermont Yankee can be shut down by the state while the lawsuit is proceeding. As Parentau of Vermont Law School described it: Judge Murtha called Entergy's bluff.

Half-Full: Well, Mr. Parentau isn't the only lawyer at Vermont Law School. I don't consider him a particularly strong voice about this matter. Parentau is the one who thought that act 160 passed (2006) because the cooling tower fell down (2007). He didn't even have the sequence of events right.

Two other lawyers at Vermont Law School, Hanna and Kreis, thought the ruling looked good for Entergy. Anyone reading the brief can see that the judge made no decision on the merits of the case, but stuck strictly to the question of whether the state's actions would cause irreparable harm to Entergy. In other words, did Entergy really require an injunction?

Half-Empty: It's all very well to read tea leaves this way, but face it, the judge turned Entergy down flatter than a pancake. His ruling doesn't bode well for the next hearing. You're just being Pollyanna. But of course, you always are.

Half-Full: Just because you are permanently crabby is no reason to insult me! I'm not just reading tea-leaves. Here's a couple of points the VLS professors made:

• Act 160 is badly framed and put Vermont Yankee into legal limbo (Hanna review)
• The Vermont legislature may have been attempting to regulate radiological safety, which is clear pre-emption of the federal role (Hanna review)
• The judge accelerated the trial dates, while saying that an injunction would not give the needed relief to Entergy. This may have been a signal that Entergy is likely to prevail at the main trial. (Kreis review)

Half-Empty: Okay. So you are reading blogs, not tea leaves. But you aren't the only one that can read blogs! Another VLS professor thinks that the injunction ruling:

• Helps the state by pointing out the areas they have to strengthen for the main trial (Parenthau review)
• Doesn't address an important argument about the Memorandum of Understanding, an argument that may support the state case. (Parenthau review)

Half-Full: I think Parenthau's argument is weak. He tries to make the judge's misgivings about the State argument into some kind of pep talk for the state.

Half-Empty: I think the Hanna and Kreis's arguments are weak. The Judge denies Entergy's request, and they act like this is a great thing for Entergy.

Half-Full: Puh-leeze. Did you even read the judge's ruling?

Half-Empty: Hey, did you read it? Frankly, I think we should change the subject.

Half-Full: Okay. Best idea you've had yet.

-----

Entergy Has to Make a Decision on Fuel

Half -Empty: It's all very well to dissect and analyze the statements of law professors who are themselves dissecting and analyzing the statement of a judge. Lots of fun! But would you invest $100 million dollars (the cost of the new fuel and the fall outage) on the belief that the upbeat interpretation of the judge's words is correct? You think Kreis and Hanna are better interpreters than Parenthau. Fine. Are you willing to bet $100 million on this choice of advisors?

Half-Full: Oh for heaven's sake. That's not the bet. It's not about those interpretations. The Entergy choices would be the same if Vermont Law School had never started a blog. It's about fuel ordering choices, not betting on lawyers.

Entergy has a lot of choices. For example, the judge has moved the trial date to September, so by the time of the planned outage, Entergy will know whether or not it has won the case.

So, right now, in July, Entergy could order fuel. If they lose at the September trial, they don't hold the outage. Yes, they have the fuel, but that is not lost money. They have other BWRs, and the fuel can be used in those, perhaps with some cost for modification. They won't lose all their fuel money, and they won't spend the outage money.

On the other hand, if Entergy orders fuel and wins the case in September, they can go ahead and refuel, pretty much on time. It's this sort of reasoning that encouraged the judge to deny the injunction. Entergy is not about to suffer irreparable harm from its choices. In his ruling, the judge gave Entergy a list of possibilities for managing the situation without losing tens of millions of dollars.

I must say, Half-Empty, you have managed to trivialize the grounds of Entergy's choice while exaggerating the financial consequences.

Half-Empty: That is absolute nonsense. What company in its right mind would spend $100 million dollars on such a bet? They would be betting the ruling will go their way, or, if it doesn't, that they will manage to use the fuel anyhow. There is a strong possibility that they will be throwing money away.

Is Vermont Yankee Worth An Investment?

Half-Empty: Speaking of throwing money away. Remember, when Entergy put the plant up for sale, nobody stepped up to buy it? That was a market assessment that Vermont Yankee is worthless as an asset. What company would put a penny into a place like that?

Half-Full: A smart company. A company that knows that a "worthless" asset can become a very valuable asset quickly when the only difference is a legal ruling. For example, Pacific Gas & Electric in California went to the verge of bankruptcy around 2001. Then a Public Utility Commission ruling allowed them to raise their rates, and---presto! Profitability! This type of scenario can and will happen again.

Half-Empty: Your analogy is flawed. Entergy owes a duty to their stockholders to avoid this sort of high-stakes bet. And, that is not all that is on the table. Bad things could happen in the future. For example, the NRC could make them do expensive upgrades, based on the NRC's interpretation of Fukushima.

Half-Full: Your reasoning is fallacious. You don't create value for stockholders by walking away from the good businesses. Bad things could happen in the future, sure, but so could good things! As a merchant plant, Vermont Yankee would have strong profitability, especially if the price of natural gas goes up. Fracking is big now and it's the great hope for cheap natural gas. But fracked wells have a shorter life-span than traditional wells, and plenty of people feel that gas prices are bound to rise after this round of frack drilling plays out. Maybe about five years from now. If gas prices rise even a little, that plant can be a gold mine for its owners.

Half-Empty: I don't agree with you, but you could conceivably be right. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Half-Full: I don't agree with you, but you could conceivably be right. Even someone without a clock can guess at the time.

Half-Empty and Half-Full: We'll just have to wait and see.

Half Empty-Half Full Glass from Wikipedia

Nuclear fuel bundles being inspected (Unfortunately, the illustration shows a PWR bundle , not aBWR bundle.)

Texas Hold-em from Wikipedia

Video Views about the Vermont Yankee Injunction Ruling

Some recent local news videos explain a lot about the injunction ruling in a short time-frame.

Jobs

The first is a two-minute clip from WMUR in Hinsdale, New Hampshire, across the Connecticut River from the power plant at Vernon. The video gives a neighbor's view of the potential Vermont Yankee closing.

Potential VT Yankee Shutdown Raises Jobs Anxiety - Project Economy News Story - WMUR New Hampshire

Legal Implications

The second is a five minute clip of Cheryl Hanna of Vermont Law School, sharing her view of Judge Murtha's ruling. In summary, Hanna says that Entergy has lost this battle, but not lost the war. She also recommends that people read the footnotes in Murtha's ruling.

No injunction: Will Vermont Yankee keep operating? - WCAX.COM Local Vermont News, Weather and Sports-

Ruling on Injunction Goes Against Entergy: Closing a Plant and Endangering the Grid is Not Irreparable Harm

Today, Judge Murtha ruled against Entergy's request for an injunction. Entergy had asked for an injunction that would allow Vermont Yankee to keep operating while the lawsuits wended their way through the courts. Today, Judge Murtha denied that request.

Over the next weeks, this decision will be the subject of much legal commentary. From two articles, one in Vermont Digger and one by Reuters, I understand that the judge ruled "the decision to refuel is either not harmful if Entergy prevails on the merits, or it is not a cognizable injury if Vermont’s statutes are upheld. This may present a [business decision-type] dilemma [for Entergy], but it does not constitute irreparable harm that can be resolved by a preliminary injunction.” Judge Murtha also set the opening date for the full hearing for September 12.

William Sorrell, the Vermont Attorney General, was quoted as saying that, with the early September trial date, there will be a ruling on the merits of the case before March. So, from his point of view, everything is great.

March Isn't the Issue

By March, there will indeed be one ruling, by Judge Murtha. Since both sides plan to appeal, and Murtha will rule for one side or another, the chances are good that the court case will continue past March. The March ruling will be the first of many.

The issue is not about March. The issue is whether or not Vermont Yankee will order fuel for an October outage, or shut the plant down in October. That decision has to be made by the end of this week, according to Entergy. March isn't the issue. July is the issue about ordering fuel. October is the issue about possibly shutting down the plant.

My Idea

The usual description of Entergy's options are the following:

• Spend $100 million on an outage in October, an expense that is usually amortized over 18 months of operation. Face the possibility of running the plant for only six months past the outage, and de facto losing about $60 million dollars in expense that cannot be recaptured by sales.
• Don't spend $100 million on the outage and shut the plant down in October, leading to great rejoicing in Montpelier, no matter how the lawsuit eventually comes out. In this case, Entergy doesn't lose as much money, but it loses something even more valuable. It loses many of the plant staff. (I assume that Entergy would put the plant in some type of lay-up where it could be restarted later. I have no particular reason to make that assumption.)
• Don't spend $100 million on the outage, and shut the plant down permanently in October. (This is the more general assumption being made.)

All of these are lousy options.

I think I have a better idea. (Not that Entergy asked me!)

My goal: don't spend the money on the refueling, but keep the staff as long as possible.

My idea: Cut back power from the plant immediately to perhaps 25% power. Keep running at this level as long as it is possible and legal, well past October. Perhaps go for a second injunction as March approaches and the appeal process takes over. Or, if Entergy wins the case at this level, refuel at that point and let the State go for an injunction on any appeal.

What are the downsides of my idea?

• Entergy will be employing people but making less revenue.
• The grid will suffer in the summer. The big nuke plants never refuel during the summer season.

However, Entergy cares about its workers, so the first part isn't too bad. The second part---what can I say? It will be amusing to watch the utilities scrambling hard for power, facing the possibility of rolling brownouts in hot weather, and asking the PSB for emergency rate increases.

At least, it will amuse some of us.

Update: You can download Judge Murtha's ruling here, and Shay Totten of 7 days has a very thoughtful analysis. Did Vermont really win?

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

Thank you to Rod Adams today for the link to this post in his blog, and the thoughtful words about it.

-----------

Event Today

The Safe and Green Campaign, the same group that led the protest on the street in front of the Court House in June, is sponsoring a discussion tomorrow in Brattleboro about pre-emption. Besides VLS faculty (Kreis and Parenthau), New England Coalition and Citizens Action Network will be presenting. 7 to 8:30. With such a long list of presenters, it doesn't sound like much audience participation will be available. In other words, don't expect to ask any questions: this isn't an NRC meeting, it's a VLS meeting. However, Kreis is usually worth listening to, so it might be worthwhile to attend. Update and Correction: I listed this meeting as being at Vermont Law School in an earlier version of this blog. It is in Brattleboro.

Nuclear fuel rods being inspected (Unfortunately, the illustration shows PWR rods, not BWR rods, but I use the graphics I can find.)

Did Vermont Yankee Bring the Suit at the Right Time? Some Thoughts on the Injunction Hearings

The current hearings about Vermont Yankee are not about the merits of the case, but about the injunction, that is:

Shall the court grant an injunction that allows Vermont Yankee to keep operating until the entire case is resolved? If the injunction is granted, the State could not close down Vermont Yankee while the lawsuit was in progress.

Injunctions are often granted when one side could take action that would be a de facto win for that side. For example, a tenant has a leaky roof and the landlord has refused to fix it. So the tenant has sued. If the landlord evicts the tenant while the court case is going on, the landlord has basically won the case, no matter what the merits of the situation might be. In this case, the court would almost certainly grant an injunction that prevents the tenant from being evicted during the court case.

Vermont Yankee is also asking to not-be-evicted during the court case.

The State Says Vermont Yankee Should Have Sued Sooner

As the Associated Press reports: Scot Kline, an assistant attorney general on the state's legal team, maintained the company was exaggerating those claimed harms. He also said the company has known for years that March 2012 loomed, could have filed its lawsuit much sooner and shouldn't be complaining of a time crunch now.

"To the extent they find themselves in a corner, they kind of walked into this corner," Kline said.

Entergy Took Action As Soon As It Could

Entergy took action as soon as it could.

• On March 10, 2011, the NRC announced it was going to grant a license extension to Vermont Yankee.
• On March 21, the license extension was granted.
• On April 18, less than a month later, Entergy filed suit against the state.

Why do I say this was "taking action as soon as it could?" A little personal history here--not about Entergy, but about my own legal education. I owned a business, and someone cheated me. It didn't cause immediate harm, but I was pretty sure it would impact my ability to get contracts in the future. (No, I am not going to go into the gory details.) At any rate, I went to a lawyer.

The lawyer told me not to sue--I couldn't win. He looked over the contracts and agreed that the other side had cheated me. However, he explained that there were two parts to a lawsuit: responsibility for the action, and harm from the action. I had one, but I didn't have the other. I had only potential harm, if other things happened in the future, if other clients did this or did that, and so forth.

In other words, any harm to me was future, nebulous, depended on other people's actions, unquantifiable. I had the cheaters on responsibility, but I could prove no real harm.

I didn't "have a case."

I was steamed, but I learned something about the law.

Earlier: Entergy Had No Case

In 2006, the legislature passed Act 160, giving themselves veto power over the Public Service Board (PSB) issuing a Certificate of Public Good (CPG) to Entergy. If Entergy had tried to bring a suit in 2006, right after Act 160 passed, I think they would have met this response from the court:

Look here, Entergy--you claim that, six years from now, IF the NRC grants you a renewal license, and IF you have that license but the legislature doesn't vote to allow the PSB to release its findings and IF the PSB finding would-have-been to grant you the Certificate of Public Good....if all this happens, then you will be harmed by this Act 160 law? Well, gimme a break. Don't clutter up the calendar with such far-fetched cases, where the harm depends on so many actions happening in your favor by so many third parties, with only the legislature causing the harm. And all this is going to happen six years from now, no less! You haven't got harm, you haven't got a case, please go away.

(Note: Entergy is currently taking the position that the PSB ruling has also been tainted by the legislature's actions. However, in the paragraph above, I am pretending it is six years ago, not today, and that Entergy attempted to sue at that time, which is what the state claims it should have done.)

The Right Steps at the Right Time

Entergy lobbied against Act 160, they fought it, they knew it was not a good thing. But they quite rightly did not sue about it until it was clearly a source of harm. In this, they acted very responsibly, in my opinion.

Of course, the State thinks Entergy should have sued immediately. After all that is what the state does! Just recently, the state lost a major suit about doctors and pharmaceutical companies, which our Attorney General argued right up to the Supreme Court. The State is johnny-on-the-spot to go to court with our tax money, but Entergy quite rightly waited till it "had a case."

Post Script: A few words about the pictures.

Howard Shaffer took these pictures outside the Brattleboro Federal Courthouse on Thursday morning, June 23. (Since Howard is behind the camera, I am in the pictures.) The Safe and Green Campaign was running a protest at that time.

In the top picture, you can see me at the far right.

In the next picture, I do not know the name of the man with the "Mafia" sign, but I have made the assumption that if you are standing on a sidewalk with a sign, you expect to get your picture taken.

The last picture shows me being interviewed by Robbie Leppzer, who is filming a documentary about Vermont Yankee. My hand-made sign says: Save the Children, Yes Vermont Yankee and shows a small child with an asthma treatment nebulizer. My point is that replacing VY with fossil would mean more childhood asthma. However, many of the anti-Vermont Yankee protesters told me, in no uncertain terms, that VY would be replaced with wind turbines and solar, not fossil.