The Solar View from Vermont: The Gold Rush and the Panels.

Andrew Savage of All Earth Renewables
describes a Vermont solar installation
to Energy Safari class, 2011
Blog post on our visit   to the solar installation
Robert Hargraves blog post on our visit

The Solar Gold Rush

At VTDigger, Erin Mansfield wrote a two-part special report on solar. It is well worth reading.

Part 1: Tax breaks drive Vermont solar gold rush
Part 2: Rural communities push back against solar

The first part includes a summary of how solar developers make money: basically, they make money through tax credits.

The second part describes how some Vermont senators tried to give the local towns more say in solar siting. They did not succeed at empowering the towns.  It doesn't matter what the local people think: the Public Service Board rules on solar siting.

I also recommend the comments on these posts.

A Quote: 100,000 acres

When I came back from my trip to England, I discovered that Erin Mansfield had called me.  By the time I called her back, it was too late be quoted in her excellent report on the solar gold rush.

However, Mansfield had looked up my post The 90% Solution: What 90% Renewables would look like in Vermont.  She quoted that post, as follows:

The Ethan Allen Institute, a conservative think tank, estimates that Vermont would need to install panels on 100,000 acres of land to meet 90 percent of its electric energy needs through solar.

The quote is correct. However, this estimate is for the case in which Vermont meets ALL its energy needs through solar renewables, not just its current electric needs. (Meeting all energy needs from renewables is the scenario required by the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan.)  The Vermont mandate is for 90% renewables for everything: electricity, transportation, heat, industrial processes.

Currently, Vermont uses 6,000 GWh of electricity per year.  I estimated that if electricity was also needed for heat pumps and transportation, we would triple that usage.  We would use 18,000 GWh electricity per year. If we met that requirement with solar, we would need 100,000 acres of solar panels.

Let's say, though, that we only use solar for our current electricity usage. We use 6000 GWh of electricity, and would only (only!) need 33,000 acres of solar installations to generate that amount of energy with solar.  (FWIW: Green Mountain National Forest is approximately 400,000 acres.)

100,000 acres: Showing my work

My estimate of 100,000 acres of solar panels was based on a 2.2 MW solar installation in White River Junction. This installation uses 15 acres and is expected to make 2,800 MWh of electricity per year.  It's a quick calculation to get to 100,000 acres. With 18,000 GWh required, and 2.8 GWh produced per 15 acres--the panels would cover 96,000 acres to make 18,000 GWh.

I wrote that estimate in 2013. I decided to do an update with more recent solar installations. I found a Woodstock installation being planned: 500 kW on 3 acres, and a Strafford Hill installation being dedicated: 2000 kW (2 MW) on 15 acres. Quick calculations showed that the solar installations are taking up about the same acres/kWh as I used in my previous estimate, to the rough level of accuracy of the earlier estimate.

The panels are coming

I don't think Vermont will ever host 100,000 acres of solar panels.  I don't think we will even host 10,000 acres of panels: the costs would be outrageously high.  At some point, even clever financing doesn't work.

But as the Mansfield report describes: solar is booming in Vermont, whether local people like it or not.  The "black billboards" (real billboards are not legal in Vermont) are springing up everywhere. As Mansfield writes:

The number and proposed size of commercial projects is also shooting up. The Public Service Department is now reacting to a handful of 20-megawatt commercial projects — which are 10 times larger than any of the existing projects in Vermont.

In other words, the panels are coming.

----------

Apple tree

Aside: Oh, I can't resist.  Once in a while, the hypocrisy is so blatant that it is funny.

Today,  Green mogul opposed wind farm off Martha's Vineyard, blasts objectors in Vermont was published by Bruce Parker of Vermont Watchdog.  The article tells about a renewable energy developer who has a fifteen million dollar home on Martha's Vineyard. He objected to Cape Wind. He claimed that it would spoil his view and lower the value of his house.  However, this same developer is planning a solar farm near the home of Libby Harris in Vermont. He has dismissed her objections (in a filed brief) as “NIMBY concerns.”

If you read Parker's post, you will see why I included a picture of an apple tree.

Parker has several guests posts on this blog.  The most recent post was Vermont town  protests renewable energy credits for MA and CT.

End Aside.

The Vernon Police Force: Super Sad True Town Meeting Story

Strafford Meeting House
Strafford Vermont

Super Sad Story True Town Meeting Story

I named this post after a novel I am reading: Super Sad True Love Story, by Gary Shteyngart. Using the novel name for the name of this post isn't as far-fetched as you might think. The Shteyngart novel is set in a high-tech but miserable future.  It is both a novel and a warning.

Similarly, this Super Sad True Town Meeting Story about Vernon is about the difficult Town Meetings in Vernon this year, and the difficult future of the town that is home to Vermont Yankee. (I write a little more about the Shteyngart book and Town Meetings at the end of this post.)

The Vernon Town Meeting, Round One

Vermont Yankee is located in Vernon Vermont, and pays approximately half the real-estate taxes paid in that town.  With the plant closing at the end of this year, Vernon has had to cut back drastically on its budget for future years.

In most towns in Vermont, budgets are decided upon and voted upon in Town Meeting.  Vermont towns have a certain level of choice about when they hold these meetings.  For example, Hartford (my town) used to hold Town Meeting on Town Meeting Day, which is a Tuesday.  However, many people can't get to a Tuesday meeting, and our town now holds its meeting on the Saturday before.

Vernon holds its Town Meeting in the evening. Apparently, the Vernon meeting usually goes for two evenings.  This year, Vernon has held three meetings...and counting. Town Meeting in Vernon is not over yet.

Town and Gown Marathon

Budgets for the town are voted on separately from school budgets.

On the first two days of Vernon Town Meeting, there were discussions of cutting back on the  town budget, with some focus on the costs of the police force.  Within the police budget, discussions centered on eliminating positions and cutting overtime.  Then, in a surprise move late on the second night, the people at Town Meeting voted to abolish the police force.  (Vote was 118 to 112, by paper ballot.)

Instead of having  town police, Vernon will contract for a small amount of police protection from other sources, such as state police.  The new budget allows about $40,000 for this protection, instead of a local police budget of about $300,000.

Meanwhile, the voters simply couldn't pass a school budget.  They turned down the proposed budget, and that whole thing is still in limbo.

After these two nights of town meetings, the voters held a third night of town meetings to deal with leftover stuff, such as changing pension plans and deciding what to do with the money that had been budgeted for new police cruisers.

I recommend some articles:

Police cruiser
New York City, of course, not Vernon
From Wikipedia

The second night of town meeting is well described in this VPR article: Vernon to Meet Again for Town Meeting Part 3

The police chief's view of town safety: Mike Faher at the Brattleboro Reformer writes: After voters make cuts, Vernon chief speaks out 

And, once again, Mike Faher at the Reformer on the third night of the meeting: Vernon town meeting wraps on third night.

But It's Not Over! A Fourth Town Meeting

First of all, the school budget remains in limbo, and something will have to be done about that in the future.

Second, abolishing the police force was a major action, and many people in the town are upset that it was done late at night by a narrow margin.  Townspeople mounted a successful petition drive to reconsider the budget. In other words, there will be a fourth Town Meeting.  As Faher of the Reformer writes: Vernon petitioners get new budget vote.  Quoting the Town Clerk from that article: "The Selectboard will get it, and they have to set a date for a special Town Meeting."

Selectboard Chair Patty O'Donnell notes that the entire budget can be discussed and amended at the new meeting.

Meanwhile, plant opponents spread their joy

The town of Vernon is in fiscal disarray, and people are meeting night after night to determine their future choices.

In contrast, some Vermont Yankee opponents are gleeful.  Here's an extensive quote from a letter to the editor in the Brattleboro Reformer.  The Reformer had the good sense to label this letter Schadenfreude?

Editor of the Reformer:

I’d like to welcome the residents and Town of Vernon back to the regular (unsubsidized) status of the rest of the smaller towns in Windham County. We have no town police departments and use the Windham County Sheriff’s Department out of Newfane and the Vermont State Police who have a barracks in West Brattleboro. .... I realize you’ve felt like you "had it good " for over 40 years and have gotten used to the lowest costs of living in Windham County. But you have also born the burden of potentially highly toxic environment with Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in your backyard. We’ll all feel safer with it closed..... You can stop complaining about having to now pay your way instead of having Vermont Yankee paying it for you. Welcome to the real world.


----
P.S.

The novel: A few words about Super Sad True Love Story. I'm reading it, but I probably won't finish it.  I don't like to spend quite that much mental time in a miserable future.  Great title, though.

Town Meetings: Town meetings are a New England staple, and if you live in a part of the country where there are no town meetings, they look pretty good.  From my cynical perspective as someone who moved to New England, Town Meetings tend to put all town decisions into the hands of those who have the leisure to show up for these often-lengthy events.

Many towns (such as mine) are amending the meeting times to get more participation, or adding an Australian Ballot (pre-printed ballot) on a regular voting day for final approval of the budget.

Town meetings have great discussions, however, and I think New England has the best meeting moderators in the world. Our town moderators have skill, tact, and deep understanding of Robert's Rules of Order.

Gas Pipelines and Fees. Both are on their way.

Gas Pipeline Flange
From Wikipedia

The gravy train slows down

Vermont Yankee will close late this year, but the region still needs energy. Other plants are also closing, due to the low natural gas prices: Brayton Point, Salem Harbor and more.  As AP's Stephen Singer wrote: New England power plant closings pinching supply. As Susan Smallheer wrote in the Rutland Herald: New England electricity glut a thing of the past.  Meanwhile, as Jim Conca (and others) reported, the gas pipelines couldn't carry enough gas to New England during the cold weather, and energy costs soared.

But heavens!  Let's not talk about energy!  Let's talk about some real problems, such as the state's current problems funding the Clean Energy Development Fund (CEDF). By law,  Vermont Yankee was forced to contribute tens of millions of dollars to CEDF. But Vermont Yankee is going away. In a recent agreement with the state, Vermont Yankee agreed  to put a final five million dollar payment into CEDF. But that will be the end of the Vermont Yankee contributions.

Vermont Fights for the Clean Energy Fund

Losing Vermont Yankee means losing the Clean Energy Development Fund, unless something is done

Building a pipeline
From Wikipedia

about the situation. In Vermont, something will always be done if favorite government subsidies look like they might run out of money.  At least, that is my opinion.

Vermont will soon no longer have Vermont Yankee, but what do we have?  Well, we have gas pipelines, and we have schools. As a matter of fact, a new gas pipeline is being built in western Vermont, though many (but not all) local people oppose it.

So the latest proposal to raise money for the CEDF is a combination of taxing gas pipelines, and diverting some school tax money to the fund.  Vermont Digger reports on the most recent bill to raise money: Shift in Pipeline Taxes Proposed to  Fund Clean Energy Projects.

This Vermont Senate bill has various sections, including:

• Diverting the part of the pipeline property taxes that now go to the education funds to the Clean Energy Development Fund. (The portion of the property tax that goes to town services would continue to go to the towns.)  
• Writing the pipeline tax assessment so that it never can depreciate to zero, but only to 30% of the original installed cost. Therefore, the pipeline will always have a residual value that can be taxed. (Changing the depreciation rules could raise the price of gas, though proponents of the plan dismiss that idea. Their argument seems to be that many things affect the price of gas. So what's one little tax more or less?)

Regulated utilities are different from you and me

Regulated utilities are different from you and me.  Regulated utilities always make money. (The few exceptions to this rule generally make the headlines in the newspapers.)

Vermont Gas Systems, a division of Gaz Metro, is a regulated utility.  From the state's point of view,  taxing Gaz Metro's gas pipelines has many advantages over taxing Entergy's Vermont Yankee.  Vermont Yankee had to pay its taxes from the money it could generate as a merchant plant.  Vermont Yankee could not raise its prices just because its tax burden had risen.  So if the taxes rise too high, the plant would lose money and go out of business.

Not so with a regulated gas pipeline. They can raise quite a bit of money.  If taxes or depreciation rules increase the cost of running the pipeline, or if the price of natural gas itself goes up, the regulated utility does not suffer.  It does not go out of business.  It just asks the Public Service Board for a ruling to increase the rate that it charges to customers.  When the utility shows a cost increase to the Board,  a rate-increase ruling is practically guaranteed.

This makes taxing a gas pipeline a very good choice for raising revenues for the state. It helps the Clean Energy Fund, it doesn't hurt Gaz Metro, so it's a good thing all around.

Well, it's a good thing most of the way around, perhaps. Pass-through taxes might hurt the Vermont citizens who have to pay those increased rates.  That might be something to think about.

Anybody thinking?

-------

There are other pipeline taxes under consideration, but those will be a subject of another blog post.

National Climate Strategy: It's about the money. My prediction

Last night, two friends sent me the same link to President Obama's announcement: he announced that he will announce his climate strategy on Tuesday.

Here's the Washington Post link: Obama to announce Tuesday he will regulate existing power plants as part of climate strategy

Here's the video of the pre-announcement.


One of my friends is pro-nuclear and she wrote something like:
"OMG, this is great news for nuclear energy!"

The other friend is a libertarian, and she wrote something like:
"OMG, what new area for regulation is coming next?"

Of course, I answered with some predictions, which I will also share right here, on my blog.

My Predictions

 IMHO, the climate change initiative will be a fundamentally a tax-raising scheme.

The scheme may include something like Vermont has now:  Entergy must contribute to a Clean Energy Development Fund (though its own energy is clean, of course).  The government will steer that shiny clean money to the people and projects that they think should receive it. In Vermont, the money goes to renewable projects and efficiency.

But I suspect that most of the money collected at the federal level will go to directly to the government.  The national government is desperate for new sources of revenue.

What about emissions? At most, this  carbon tax could tilt the balance  from coal to natural gas.  However, unless the tax is so high that it would have a visible effect on electricity prices (and no politician wants that), the main driver will continue to be the relative prices of gas and coal.  In other words, this scheme won't affect carbon emissions very much, but it will raise revenue.

The utilities have their plants in place. Unlike other industries, utilities can't move out of the country. So--voila! The sitting ducks!

Federal Court Dismisses Vermont Yankee Tax Case

The Generation Tax

I have a wind turbine illustration for this post because the underlying issue in the Vermont Yankee tax case is about wind turbines.  Well, actually, it is about the Clean Energy Development Fund (CEDF), which was funded by Vermont Yankee, and paid for many wind turbines and other renewable projects.

Vermont Yankee's obligation to fund the CEDF ended in March 2012, and the people in Montpelier have been trying to do something about this ever since. "Doing something" consisted of finding a way to keep VY paying into the fund.  They levied an extra $7 million dollar generation tax on Vermont Yankee...rather, the tax applied to any power plant, larger than 200 MW, which was built after 1965.  There just happened to be only one power plant that met this description.

Was this a targeted, non-constitutional tax on one business, or just tax business as usual? Entergy thought it was not constitutional. I thought the same.

I blogged about the resulting lawsuit in  The Latest Lawsuit: Is It a Constitutional Case in Vermont?

Another reason for the wind turbine illustration, however, is that the new tax rate on VY became the same tax per kWh for Entergy and for (highly-subsidized) wind turbines.  This allowed the state to make the case that these taxes were simply state business.  Same tax for wind and nuclear, less for other electricity sources.  The argument was "that's just how Vermont wants to do it, and no business of the federal courts."

The Ruling

Yesterday, in federal court, the judge moved to dismiss the lawsuit.   The question hinged on whether this was a state "tax" on a business (and therefore, state business) or a "levy" against a single business (and therefore, a constitutional issue).  Judge Christina Reiss ruled that it was a tax and dismissed the federal case.

This is clearly and certainly a set-back for Entergy, but it has been reported as "case dismissed" when really the ruling is more like "case redirected."  To quote Andrew Stein's Vermont Digger article on the outcome:  Judge Christina Reiss ruled that the generating tax was indeed a “tax” under the Tax Injunction Act, and Entergy does have a “plain, speedy and efficient” avenue through the state court system.

Will Entergy move the case to the Vermont courts?  I don't know.

Quotes Without Comment

Tony Klein is the chairman of the Vermont House Natural Resources and Energy Committee; he was quoted in an article about this tax lawsuit.  The article is by Dave Gram, and appeared on September 11 in Boston.com.  I saved a copy to my hard disk, but I can't find the article on the web right now.  Note: this was an article about the lawsuit.

Rep. Tony Klein, D-East Montpelier and chairman of the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, said Tuesday the state's intent was for Vermont Yankee to shut down.

In a September 13 article about the tax, on Vermont Digger, Mr, Klein was quoted as follows:

But Rep. Tony Klein, D-East Montpelier, who chairs the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, and Rep. Dave Sharpe, D-Bristol, who is on the House Ways and Means Committee that designed the tax, steadfastly deny that the Legislature’s intent was to create a tax aimed at inhibiting the plant’s operation.

The Latest Law Suit: Is It a Constitutional Case in Vermont?

Bill of Attainder or Just a Regular Old Tax?

When is a tax unconstitutional? And when is it-- just a tax?

As usual in issues concerning the state of Vermont and Vermont Yankee, this question will be hammered out in court.  As a matter of fact, the question before the court right now is...which court? Federal court or state court?

It's a question of jurisdiction, but the issue is a bigger question than jurisdiction.

The question is whether a single, law-abiding business can be targeted by a state for a very special and onerous tax.  Is it legal for the state of Vermont to write a tax bill that increases taxes on one entity (Vermont Yankee) by about $7 million dollars a year, and increases no other taxes?

We will see how this case develops, but I suspect businesses all over the country are a bit frightened by this one.  If Vermont can write a special tax that applies to one  business, so can Ohio.  So can Cook County, Illinois. There will be no end to it, in my opinion.

Background: The Clean Energy Development Fund Needs Money

Once upon a time, and not so long ago, either, Vermont Yankee agreed to contribute a great deal of money to something called the Clean Energy Development Fund (CEDF).  The amount varied with the price of power on the grid, but was often several million dollars, sometimes as much as $7 million. This tax funded wind and solar development, and some efficiency projects.

In my opinion, the CEDF contribution requirements were the result of a shakedown.  "Nice little power plant you got there.  Be a shame if something happened to your ability to store fuel rods on site."  Well.  That's just my opinion.

However it happened, (by negotiation, by shakedown)  Entergy agreed to contribute to the Clean Energy Development fund, up until March 21, 2012, when Entergy's first NRC license ended.  After March 2012, a great many legal obligations changed.  Entergy was no longer obliged to sell power to Vermont utilities at a fixed rate, and Vermont utilities were no longer obliged to buy power from Vermont Yankee.  Entergy's obligation to the Clean Energy Development Fund ended.  And so forth.

If you visit the Clean Energy Development Fund website, you can see that the grant and loan programs are now closed.  No money from Entergy, no money for grants or loans. (Note: CEDF did not get all its money from Entergy.  It also received money from the ARRA stimulus funds. That money is not available for the future.)

The lack of money for the CEDF has been very irritating to the groups in Montpelier that support wind turbines, etc.  They want that Entergy money to come back, and pronto!

Of course, the same people also want Vermont Yankee to shut down, and pronto! Logical consistency is not their strong suit.

This year, the legislature passed a law adding $7 million dollars to the $5 million dollar generation tax that Entergy pays already.  The idea was that CEDF would once again be funded by Entergy, and everyone will be happy.  At least, that is what the legislators hope.

State Legal Team Issues a Warning to Legislature

In April, when the legislature was considering this tax, two state lawyers issued a warning.  Vermont Assistant Attorney General Scot Kline  and legislative lawyer Peter Griffin were quoted in an article in the Burlington Free Press:

Although two lawyers told them it would be a risky move, legislators are poised to approve a tax increase on the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.

“There is some legal risk associated with increasing the generating tax,” Assistant Attorney General Scot Kline told the Senate Finance Committee this week.

Kline said the tax change could be challenged in court...Kline said the Attorney General’s Office decided lawmakers should be told of the risk. Peter Griffin, a legislative lawyer, told the committee he agreed with Kline’s assessment.

The legislature passed the bill anyway, of course.  To some extent, I gotta smile at this.  It reminds me of when Entergy sued in Federal Court in the main case about shutting the plant down.  At that point, the legislature quickly passed a law saying Entergy had to pay the state costs and lawyers to defend the case.  They passed the law, but the State Attorney General had to admit that the law was on "shaky ground" and never tried to enforce it.  Plus ça change, as they say...The Vermont legislature never seems to learn.

Oh yeah.  I have an earlier post on this attempt to get money. In January:  Taxing Fuel Rods, Vermont Legislature Plans Another Law Which Will End Up in Court.

The Warning Comes Home: Entergy Sues

Clearly, Entergy had an incentive to avoid being targeted this way, and brought suit against the state.  It brought this suit in federal court, on constitutional grounds. Andrew Stein at Vermont Digger has a comprehensive article on the lawsuit, including the four constitutional issues Entergy named in its suit, and an interview with Cheryl Hanna of Vermont Law School.  A quote from the article below:

Hanna thinks the equal protection argument might be Entergy’s strongest.

“Where the Legislature runs the greatest risk is that they targeted Vermont Yankee,” she said.

To see the actual wording of the law, follow this link to the omnibus tax bill, and read the words on page 47:

(a) There is hereby assessed each year upon electric generating plants constructed in the state subsequent to July 1, 1965, and having a name plate generating capacity of 200,000 kilowatts, or more, a state tax in accordance with the following table: at the rate of $0.0025 per kWh of electrical energy produced.

There's only one such plant.  It would have been easier to just name "Vermont Yankee."

The Empire Under the Dome Fights Back

The state asked the federal judge to dismiss the Entergy lawsuit, claiming it was merely a matter of a state tax, not a federal or constitutional issue.  Susan Smallheer of the Rutland Herald reports on the Entergy counter-argument that this is a levy, not a tax.

This is clearly an on-going dispute which will be going on for quite a while.  I will continue to cover it as more information is available.

Meanwhile, let's hope that Cook County doesn't get any bright ideas on how to raise money for Chicago city government, by targeting the richest businesses in town!  I used to live in Chicago, and I wouldn't put it past the city government to do that.

Of course, now I live in the clean green state of Vermont.

Catching Up: The River, Lawsuits and Some Anniversaries

September 12, 2011
In front of courthouse in Brattleboro

It's time for a little catching-up.

Shaffer at ANS Nuclear Cafe on Plant Cooling

At  Vermont Yankee, as at other plants, heat rejection includes the river. (At VY, I say "includes the river" because there are also cooling towers.) Opponents use the thermal discharge as a way to attempt to shut down the plant, or alternately, to harass the plant into unnecessary and expensive use of its cooling towers in all weather.  Howard Shaffer has an excellent post on water issues at Vermont Yankee, and how they are distorted by the plant opponents. His post was published at ANS Nuclear Cafe Tuesday: Plant cooling a stumbling block?

Lawsuits: The Present

Lawsuit about discriminatory taxes: New Lawsuit

Yesterday, Vermont Yankee filed a lawsuit against the state of Vermont in federal court  Vermont Yankee had been paying $5 million a year in a generation tax to the state of Vermont. It had also been paying another assessment, calculated by a formula, to the Clean Energy Development Fund (CEDF).  Entergy agreed to this when it moved some of its fuel rods into dry cask storage.

Vermont Yankee paid around $7 million to the CEDF some years.  However, the agreement to pay into the CEDF ended on March 21, 2012.

 In January of 2012, the Vermont Legislature passed a bill requiring Entergy to pay more than $12 million in a generation tax. In other words, as the CEDF agreement with Entergy ended, the state just added that $7 million to the generation tax. The state didn't want the revenue stream to end when the agreement ended. You'd think that an agreement is an agreement, with a date on it.  Not in the Vermont legislature, apparently.

Yesterday, Entergy sued the state in federal court against this discriminatory taxation.

I will blog about this more in the future.  Meanwhile, this AP article gives a good description of the grounds of the lawsuit: Vermont Nuke Plant Sues Over New State Tax.  You might also enjoy reading the comments on this short WCAX article on the lawsuit.

And oh, I can't resist.  A link to my January blog post:  Taxing Fuel Rods: The Vermont Legislature Plans Another Law Which Will End Up in Court.

I was right.  It ended up in court.

Lawsuit about Federal Pre-Emption: New Briefs in Old Suit

Vermont Yankee won its case in Federal Court, and Attorney General Sorrell filed his brief for the appeal. I blogged about his brief in June: It's the Renewables, Stupid? Vermont Files a Brief.

Since then, Entergy has filed its brief, and Amicus Curiae briefs have been filed.  I am not  on the opponent mailing lists, but I am on Entergy's mailing list for plant information.  Therefore,  I received copies of Entergy's brief and the plant supporters Amicus Curiae briefs. (These documents are all part of the public record as soon as they are filed.)

The Vermont Attorney General's Office has a webpage for Vermont Yankee filings, but alas, it is out of date at this point.  But I fixed that!  I didn't fix the AG's website, but I put up a web page on the Energy Education Project Website.  Here it is:

Filings in Entergy Appeal.

This page includes Judge Murtha's ruling, the State brief, the Entergy brief, and five pro-Entergy Amicus Curiae filings.

Anniversaries: The Past and the Pictures

I thought about September 11, and I will always think about it. I didn't blog about it this year, but here's a link to my blog post of last year: The Tenth Anniversary and Conspiracy Theories

More cheerfully, a year ago September 12 was the first day of the court hearing in Brattleboro on the Vermont Yankee federal lawsuit. Anti-Vermont Yankee people, mostly dressed in black, held a vigil in front of the federal courthouse. Vermont Yankee supporters, many with white t-shirts, held a rally.

 I decided to illustrate this post with some pictures from that day.  The picture at the top shows plant supporters on the right, plant protesters on the left, and a documentary film-maker taking a movie of it all. You can read more about the rally at my blog post: Rally Retrospective: On the Sidewalks for Vermont Yankee.