I never should have done it. Four days ago, I published a post Five Legal Wrangles About Vermont Yankee. I counted five, but lo and behold! Today there's a sixth lawsuit! You just can't keep up a count around here.
The Cooling Tower Problems
In August 2007 and July 2008, Vermont Yankee had widely-publicized collapses of a part of the cooling tower bank. The first incident happened because it happened. Vermont Yankee has rather old wooden cooling towers, and there was a maintenance problem on one of them. The second incident happened because of an incomplete repair of the first incident. In both cases, the plant stayed on-line, but de-rated power. It lowered power output for 11 days (first incident) and 12 days (second incident).
On the basis of these incidents, Central Vermont Public Service (CVPS) and Green Mountain Power (GMP) are suing Entergy. They had to buy more expensive replacement power during the time of lowered output from Vermont Yankee. They say that the plant was negligent about maintaining the cooling towers, so they deserve the money in recompense. You can read their press release here and it has been widely reprinted as a news article. Albany station WAMC had a short program on the lawsuit, hosted by Pat Bradley. Don Kreis of Vermont Law School gives his opinion, and I give mine. (The program is three minutes long.)
If Everything Isn't Perfect, We're Suing
Briefly speaking, this is a ridiculous lawsuit. There are all sorts of utility contracts out there, and CVPS and GMP did not have a contract in which Entergy had to pay them for replacement power. That is the end of the story. GMP and CVPS didn't have a contract that required reimbursement.
The utilities are claiming that Entergy's plant maintenance was so bad that the de-rating was due to Entergy negligence. I have one word for that: Ridiculous! Vermont Yankee has a high capacity factor, and has had a series of breaker-to-breaker runs (from one refueling to another without a stop). In this case, it wasn't even off-line for the repairs. It had just powered down.
If utilities sued every time a plant powered down or went off-line unexpectedly, there
would be no end to it! Of course, if a plant is not operating at full capacity, something went wrong. I suppose this could have been prevented if everything had been done perfectly. Let's look at coal plants, for example. They have to keep testing the coal they receive. Let's say they receive some coal and they don't get the chemistry analysis quite right and boom...their boiler is coated with slag and they are off-line. (Most coal plants test coal extensively and blend coal to avoid this situation. They don't always manage to avoid it.) Should a coal plant be sued on the basis that they should have done a better chemical analysis?
would be no end to it! Of course, if a plant is not operating at full capacity, something went wrong. I suppose this could have been prevented if everything had been done perfectly. Let's look at coal plants, for example. They have to keep testing the coal they receive. Let's say they receive some coal and they don't get the chemistry analysis quite right and boom...their boiler is coated with slag and they are off-line. (Most coal plants test coal extensively and blend coal to avoid this situation. They don't always manage to avoid it.) Should a coal plant be sued on the basis that they should have done a better chemical analysis? Utility Contracts
There are all sorts of utility contracts out there. Bob Hargraves and I visited seven plants when we led the ILEAD course on Energy Safari. If you read the posts on the Energy Safari blog, you will read about power plants that:
- sell power at the market price when the price is high enough
- sell power at a fixed price, and have to reimburse the utility when they have promised power but can't deliver
- sell power at a fixed price, and don't have to reimburse anybody if their power isn't available
- don't want to tell us the terms of their contracts
If a utility wants to buy power that is available without interruption at a given price, it writes a contract saying that the power plant must reimburse the utility for any power that is not provided. Of course, the utility can expect to pay more for power on that basis, just as you can expect to pay for an "extended service contract" on an appliance. Insurance against failure costs money.
Insurance
The utility can also pay money for insurance. If the utility buys insurance against having to buy higher-cost power, it doesn't have to put any terms in the contract with the power plant.
For example, I attended a hearing at the State House when GMP and CVPS testified that they actually have insurance policies which would reimburse them for replacement power costs if Vermont Yankee power was not available to them. The policies began to pay if Vermont Yankee was off-line for more than about 30 days. I am sure the utilities could have bought other insurance: insurance against three-day outages, twelve day power reductions, anything. Insurance companies love to sell insurance! However, insurance against small events would have been expensive, since such events are very likely. Most companies self-insure for small problems.
Money or Harassment?
I can never know anyone's motives, of course. However, to me this lawsuit sounds more harassment than like a business situation. Surely the utilities know what kind of contract they have with Vermont Yankee? Surely they know that they don't have the sort of contract that includes reimbursement for replacement power? Surely they know about the various types of contracts? Surely they know that accusing a plant of negligent maintenance won't fly, when the plant is running from fuel loading to fuel loading (breaker to breaker), 500 days or more, without unplanned shut-downs? Surely they know they could have purchased insurance against the costs of replacement power? Surely they know they actually have purchased insurance against the costs of replacement power due to long outages?GMP and CVPS are acting as if they don't know any of this.
Interestingly, the utilities want to have a jury trial on this subject. I think they are hoping to capitalize on the "Entergy Louisiana" and "strontium fish" rhetoric of the Vermont administration. They hope to win their case by pounding on the table.
Washing Machines
The Entergy lawyers can argue their case without any table-pounding.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. CVPS and GMP had opportunities to insure themselves against paying the cost of replacement power. They could have stipulated that we pay the cost of replacement power as a requirement in their contract with Entergy. Or they could have bought third-party insurance for their costs during power derates or outages. CVPS and GMP did not taken any such action.
"Instead, these utilities are in the position of someone who does not buy the extended warranty on the new washing machine, but expects to get free service anyway. We at Entergy are pleased that they expected perfect operation of the plant. We are pleased our general excellent maintenance and breaker-to-breaker runs may have led them to expect perfect operation. However, they took no steps to protect themselves if operation was imperfect. Though we are flattered at their expectations, we must point out that expectations of perfect operation are unrealistic, and are certainly not enforceable through the courts."
--------------
Picture of the Comerford Hydro plant from Energy Safari blog. Picture taken by Bob Hargraves. All other graphics from Wikipedia..
