Looking Forward and Looking Back

A Podcast Overview of 2012

Yesterday, I took part in an Atomic Show podcast on Nuclear Wrap Up, 2012.  The participants were
Rod Adams (the show organizer) and blogger at Atomic Insights
Gwyneth Cravens, author of Power to Save the World
William Davis of Atomic Power Review and ANS Nuclear Cafe
Ben Heard of Decarbonize SA, and author of Zero Carbon Options: Seeking an Economic Mix for an Environmental Outcome, calling in from Australia

We discussed the sweep of nuclear energy, including Jaczko's resignation, the new builds in the United States, Vermont Yankee winning in court, progress toward nuclear energy in Australia, and the election of the pro-nuclear party in Japan. The conversation was wide-ranging and fun.

The 137th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers is also up at Hiroshima Syndrome. Great nuclear blogposts, collected for your reading pleasure.

My Own Overview of 2012

My viewpoint tends to be very New England based, and heaven knows there was enough going on.

• Vermont Yankee won its lawsuit in Federal Court, mostly on the basis that the State was trying to pre-empt the federal regulation of nuclear safety.
• The two major Vermont utilities merged.  Green Mountain Power is owned by Gaz Metro of Quebec, and Green Mountain Power now owns Central Vermont Public Service.
• The State of Vermont issued a rapidly-written Comprehensive Energy Plan. This plan says Vermont will be 90% renewable power for everything (including heating and transportation) by 2050.  
• Vermont Yankee also needs a Certificate of Public Good from the Vermont Public Service Board, and the Public Service Board opened a new docket.  The old docket contained material about nuclear safety (a federally pre-empted subject).  Many people spoke in favor of Vermont Yankee at the two public hearings on the new docket.

There's more of course, but these were the main stories. I put up 220 blog posts in 2012, and they still don't cover everything. (I wrote most of the blog posts, but there were also many guest posts, especially of testimony at the PSB hearings.)

Not a major energy story, of course, but...

Howard Shaffer and I were awarded Presidents' Citations by the American Nuclear Society in June.  We are deeply grateful to the American Nuclear Society for this honor.


Looking Forward to 2013

Let's look at those four stories again

• The State and Vermont Yankee both appealed various parts of the ruling to the circuit court of appeals in New York.  The oral arguments will be presented Monday, January 14 in New York City.  
• In my opinion, the merged utilities are putting too high a reliance on short-term contracts, and assuming the price of natural gas will not go up rapidly.  (Of course, the merged utilities ARE part of Gaz Metro...) I wrote a December op-ed about that expresses my opinions on over-reliance on natural gas.
• The Comprehensive Energy Plan is running into trouble, as town after town objects to wind turbines and utilities and Vermont senators call for a wind moratorium. 
• In the Certificate of Public Good, one of the chief opponents of Vermont Yankee decided to file in Vermont Supreme Court for the plant to be shut down, thereby attempting an end-run around the Public Service Board hearings.  I don't think this tactic will work, but it is something that will work or not-work in 2013.

Looking Forward Personally

A week from today, I will begin leading my course Engineering Adventures with Nevil Shute. I didn't know this when I planned the course, but there's an international organization, the Nevil Shute society, and they plan to make videos of the course.  A woman from Boston will drive up to attend the course and make the videos.

(No pressure there, Meredith!)

Looking back at my own year...220 blog posts (plus op-eds and ANS blog posts) are just too many.  My New Year's resolution is to cut back some, especially since I have some paid writing lined up.  I have neglected my little company, Carnot Communications, but Carnot seems to be reviving itself without much effort on my part.  I am grateful.

I also plan to write some longer things such as white papers and ebooks. That's the plan, anyhow.  My commitment  is unwavering: to Vermont Yankee, nuclear energy, and a reasonable energy policy.  However,  I have no desire to write even more blog posts next year.

I wish all my readers a happy, healthy, peaceful and prosperous New Year!

Christmas Links: Cookies and Friends, A Christmas Carol, and the Carnival

Rockefeller Center Christmas Tree

Links of the Season

Friendship and Food:  ANS Nuclear Cafe usually uses a guest post from me late in the month.  Consequently,  I have a holiday season post up today: The Other Side of the Cookie: Anti-Nuclear People in Our Lives.

We can all get along, if we try. We all want the best for our children.

Dickens and Harry Reid: The ghosts of Christmas Past (in terms of nuclear waste), Christmas Present (France and the WIPP) and Christmas Future visit a group of U S Senators in a Nuclear Waste Carol. This informative and funny post is from the Heritage Foundation.

136th Carnival: The most recent Carnival is up at Atomic Power Review, including Will Davis's signature guess-this-picture at the front of the post.  Then there's Rod Adams on climate change skeptics in the pro-nuclear community (can't we all just get along?), a great reading list on nuclear from Dan Yurman, and Gail Marcus celebrating 70 years of nuclear fission.  Plus much more.   A year-end treat, for sure!

For all my readers who celebrate Christmas, have a Merry Christmas with friends, family, food, music, and spiritual renewal. And even presents under the tree!

A Safe Plant and the Same Few Protestors: Guest Post by Steve Moriarty

Hello.  My name is Steve Moriarty; I live in Greenfield, MA and have worked at VY for 34+ years.


Prior to that, I worked all around NE for New England Power Service Co., a construction company that services all NE plants.

My background is electrical construction/maintenance, Materials Management, Quality Assurance and Quality Control.

In that first job, I traveled from fossil plant to fossil plant in NE.  Some were oil and some were coal.  I also work at a few Hydro stations.

In 1977 I was assigned to VY. When I first visited the site I was pleasantly surprised.  It was clean, organized and run proficiency.

It was nothing like the dirty fossil plants that I was working in previously.

I soon saw that extraordinary attention was and continues to be paid to safety of the public, workers, and environment.

Procedure adherence was not an option it was and continues to be the standard operating procedure.

I was so impressed by the workplace and the personnel at VY; that I took a permanent position at VY and have been here since (now 39+ years combined service).

I met and married my wife, raised two children in Franklin County.

The bulk of my state taxes are paid to VT.

My daughter worked here as a summer employee while attending college.  She is a Microbiologist and is now married with two healthy and happy children.

My son is a Mechanical Engineer.  He worked here for two summers as an intern, and that experience set him up for success.  He too, is now married and healthy.

I would not have allowed either to work here, if I didn't truly believe it was a good and safe place to work.

Both of my children and my wife cannot believe the day to day difficulty that I must go through as a nuclear worker just to be able to do my job.

This defensive posture, that all nuclear workers are forced to assume, is not a daily task of workers in most professions.

My son noted that "there really aren't many young people speaking out  against your plant".   This was based on discussions over the nuclear  option at UMASS Amherst, while at college.

I got to thinking, and I too realized that I have been looking at the same faces for 10-20-30 years. (i.e. really not a lot of people speaking out against Nuclear, "just the same few").

I also asked my son him what he has heard at college and in the workplace, relative to nuclear power and its future, and his response was that many students in the Engineering program and engineering professionals are in favor of nuclear as a viable green source of energy.

Some, of course, like the idea of wind, solar, or hydro; but they also realize the nuclear power is needed, as well.

One thing that was agreed on was that this country's reliance on coal and oil was something they don't want.

They all seem to be very concerned about the environmental damage being done by fossil fuel, let alone the problems associated with obtaining those fuels.

So, what's the point?  The point is that if "these same few" spent as much energy on working with us to make the next generation of nuclear power plants even better, we all could gain.

It may be time to stop the 10-20-30++++ years of protesting and redirect that energy toward valuable and welcomed input to the future, all of our futures.

Nuclear power is here, it has proven its value, and it can be even more valuable to the environment and our energy demands into the future.

Thank you for your consideration, and I hope you see the real value of allowing Entergy-Vermont Yankee to operate into the future.

________

Steve Moriarty wrote this statement by email and submitted it to the Public Service Board on Docket 7862.  He was kind enough to send me a copy to be used as a guest post.  Moriarty's post and Stuart Endsley's recent guest post are boots-on-the-ground comparisons of nuclear and fossil plants.  Their words may be well known to utility workers, but they cover a subject that you rarely see in print.  Endsley's post: Acid and Air, the Environmental Effects of Non-Nuclear Electricity. 

Contribute to the Energy Education Project

Please Contribute to the Energy Education Project

Ethan Allen

There are many worthy causes competing for your generosity, but Vermonters’ ability to support any and all of those causes depends on Vermont’s continued prosperity. Unfortunately, our prosperity is being sabotaged by misguided energy policies such as unrealistic energy "plans," ever-increasing subsidies for renewable energy projects, and state-sponsored efforts to shut down the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant.

The Energy Education Project of the Ethan Allen Institute needs your support this year with a $30 membership in our program. To donate by PayPal, you can click on the Donate button at the upper right corner of the blog, or  click the Donate Button on this page of the Energy Education Project website.

The Energy Education Project

The Energy Education Project works to educate people about the real, science-driven energy choices we have, and cut through the hyped rhetoric about how Vermont can be instantly "green" at almost no cost.

Meredith Angwin is a physical chemist with twenty years of utility experience,  and Howard Shaffer is a registered professional engineer in Vermont and New Hampshire, with over thirty years of utility experience. We are the two people who staff the project. 

We have written op-eds, blog posts, brochures and other material to spread accurate information. We have made videos for YouTube and blogs.  We have talked to Rotary and Kiwanis clubs all over the state.  We have been on radio regularly, including WDEV, WCAX, WNTK, WAMC, NHPR and WHMP.  

We have debated anti-nuclear activists at high schools, panels, and colleges in Vermont, including the University of Vermont.  We have commented on the Vermont Energy Plan in print, at hearings,  and on the radio. 

We have a web presence with a Save Vermont Yankee Facebook Page, a twitter feed,  this blog and an Energy Education Project website.  We also contribute guest blogs to ANS Nuclear Cafe.

At the grassroots level, we staged rallies in Vernon to show that Vermont Yankee has supporters (yes, they do!), and helped pro-Yankee activists get positive press coverage with a few well-chosen media events. 

Awards and Plans

For our energy education work, Meredith Angwin and Howard Shaffer received a major award in 2012:  the prestigious President's Citation of the American Nuclear Society. This award acknowledges that our Vermont battles have national significance.

The Energy Education Project of the Ethan Allen Institute has been the most active and effective group educating people about important Vermont energy issues. For a prosperous Vermont tomorrow, for prosperous Vermonters who can support other worthy causes tomorrow, please support the Energy Education Project today! 

Contributions

Please, help us keep this good and important work going. Basic yearly membership in the Energy Education Project is just $30. A contribution of $200 will support the mileage and minor expenses for Meredith Angwin or Howard Shaffer for one month. $500 will fund copying, renting rooms for meetings, pizza parties for supporters, small ads about meetings, and so forth, for two months.

The Ethan Allen Institute is a 501(c)3 charitable/educational corporation, and your donation is fully tax deductible.

To donate, you can either send a check to the Energy Education Project/EAI at

EAI

PO Box 543, 

Montpelier VT 05601 

(please note "energy" on the memo field to direct the funds to the Energy project instead of the entire Institute, if that is what you want to do.)

or click the Donate button on this page  to donate by PayPal.

Acid and Air, the Environmental Effects of Non-Nuclear Electricity: Guest Post by Stuart Endsley

Stuart Endsley

My name is Stuart Endsley and I am in favor of granting a permit to Vermont Yankee. Over the past 32 years, I have worked in many types of power generation facilities -- both nuclear and non-nuclear.

I don’t need to speak of the economic benefit of Vermont Yankee since many business leaders have already done so. Nor do I need to speak about the great benefit local charities receive, you’ve heard from them as well. You, as board members, are smart individuals, and I’m certain you recognize the public good Vermont Yankee provides in regard to those issues.

Instead, I would like to speak of my personal experiences working at different types of power generation facilities -- the facilities that would most likely replace much of the energy generated by Vermont Yankee should it close.

I would like to tell you about a fossil plant I worked in last February where after just six weeks the paint on my car was damaged by the acid rain coming from the stack. The pollution that damaged my car does not know state borders and simply goes wherever the wind blows, including Vermont.  This is certainly NOT in the public’s good.

I would also like to mention a Biomass plant, a so-called “Green Plant,” that I worked in a few years back.  After just two shifts, the caustic chemicals used in the scrubbers ate up the threads in the soles of my shoes causing the soles to fall off. These chemicals were found on the walkways and catwalks and when it rained they simply went down the street and ultimately into the ground water which also doesn’t recognize state borders.  This is certainly NOT in the public’s good.

I’ve worked at wind turbine projects in Iowa, Minnesota, Oklahoma, California, and Texas. At each of these sites I found dead birds that had been killed by the turbines. These birds did not know state borders either and some of them may have come from Vermont. Again, this hidden side effect of wind energy is certainly NOT in the public’s good.

And what about the coal plant in southern Nevada with tens of acres of fly ash containing arsenic and God knows what other carcinogens?  All in public view where the winds were free to carry it where they pleased. Most certainly NOT in the public’s good.

So I close my testimony by asking each of you to consider the true environmental impact of these alternative sources of energy.  I encourage you to personally visit some of these plants to see first-hand, as I have, the impact of these plants in regards to the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the wildlife we enjoy.

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

Stuart Endsley works at Vermont Yankee.  He gave this statement at the Public Service Board's November 19 interactive TV hearing on Vermont Yankee's Certificate of Public Good.  He was kind enough to send me a copy of his testimony.

The Price of Power in the Northeast

I wrote an op-ed for the Valley News (my local paper) on price of power in the Northeast.  Nuclear plants are providing the backstop against electricity price rises due to the rising price of natural gas.  I am proud that my op-ed is on the front page of the Valley News Perspective section. Vermont's Surplus of Power Uncertainty

The paper came late to my doorstep today.  Before it had even arrived, I had an email from a member of my town selectboard thanking me for the informative article.  That sort of thing just makes me glow!

A hearty thank you to Martin Frank, editor of the Valley News.  He helped me achieve clarity as well as brevity on this subject.  That is what a good editor can do.  I am grateful.

Let me also encourage you to read the 135th Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers, now posted at ANS Nuclear Cafe.  As usual, the best of the nuclear blog scene, and all in one place for easy reading.

Hot Potato and the New Request: Entergy Asks for Injunction against PSB and Shumlin in Federal Court

The DPS and Public Service Board Don't Join NEC

Public Service Board members David Coen, Commissioner
John Volz and John Burke (left to right in picture)
At November 7 PSB hearing

A few days ago,  the New England Coalition against Nuclear Pollution (known as NEC) sued in Vermont Supreme Court.  NEC asked the Vermont court to shut down Vermont Yankee, although there are two other jurisdictions hearing aspects of the Vermont Yankee case. In an earlier post, Vermont DPS Not Joining Opponent Lawsuit,  I wrote that the Vermont Department of Public Service (DPS) asked the Vermont Supreme Court to deny this NEC suit.

In that post, I wrote that the DPS probably asked the Supreme Court to deny the suit because if the Supreme Court undertook hearing the NEC lawsuit, that lawsuit would invalidate the Public Service Board process.  The DPS charter is to appear before the Public Service Board and take part in the Board process. Naturally, the DPS would want that process respected.

So, I was not surprised to learn that the Public Service Board itself had asked the Supreme Court to deny the NEC petition.  After all, the Public Service Board doesn't want its own process invalidated.

Hot Potato

However, there were still surprises in store for me.  I read last night in Vermont Digger that  Entergy filed a new motion in Federal Court in the against Shumlin, et al (in their official roles) and against the Public Service Board (PSB).


What? A request for a new injunction?

Yet, when I read the  Entergy motion for injunction, their request makes sense.  Not something I would have predicted, but it makes sense.  The Public Service Board has to stop  treating this Certificate of Public Good as a hot potato. "Somebody else take this, pretty please!"

Entergy notes the PSB rulings have been ambiguous. The PSB November 29 ruling pretty much invited third parties to challenge the operation of Vermont Yankee.  On page 5 of the Entergy filing, Entergy quotes the November 29, 2012 PSB ruling: it invites other parties to use the PSB ruling as a basis to bring actions against Vermont Yankee.

Aside: See Entergy quote about the ruling at the bottom of this post. Also, I wrote extensively about this recent ruling which was "strongly worded" against Entergy but also "narrow" and issued on an obsolete docket.  You can also read the ruling here. End Aside.

In other words, in that ruling, the PSB basically says: "The PSB is not going to take action, but you can. Let's you and him fight, and leave us (the PSB) out of it."

I don't understand the points of law, but I do understand that the Public Service Board has written ambiguous statements. The Public Service Board is supposed to hold hearings and issue rulings, and  I think the Public Service Board may be playing "hot potato" instead.  They have written an opinion that encouraged someone like NEC to take the docket off their hands. The Certificate of Public Good is a hot potato...quick, throw it to someone else!

Due Process

The purpose of the March ruling by Judge Murtha was to allow court cases and PSB dockets to continue in a logical and legal fashion, without the constant threat of the state attempting to shut down Vermont Yankee while the legal process is on-going.

It doesn't seem as if the concept of legal due process should be so difficult. You would think due process would be what the Public Service Board wants.  I would think the Board would want their own process to be respected. On the other hand, after a meeting this March in which the Board behaved in an unprofessional and crabby fashion (at least in my opinion), I am not sure what they want.

This Entergy docket for a Certificate of Public Good is a hot potato, politically.  But from the point of view of the law, it's a legal docket, and should be treated as one.

Ultimately, I think that is what the Entergy request is about.  The PSB should handle its dockets professionally. Instead, they issued an odd order on an old docket, and that order looks like an open-invitation to third party lawsuits.  By issuing that order, I think that the PSB hoped that someone will rescue the them from the necessity of making hard choices.

However, Judges and Boards are given the status, authority, and ability to make the hard choices.  That's why they hold the positions they hold.  I hope the PSB  realizes this.

-----
Longish quote from the Entergy filing:

The PSB did not affirmatively state that it would take action to shut down the VY Station for failure to obtain a new CPG from the Board before March 21, 2012, but the PSB did expressly invite others (such as NEC) to do so: “Entergy VY entered into a binding contract with the Department [of Public Service] and other parties not to operate after March 21 absent Board authorization. Entergy VY has not challenged the validity of this commitment in its  federal litigation.[1] Thus, any of those parties could seek specific performance ... at any time which, if granted, would bar operation after March 21, 2012.” Id. at 19.  

Non-party (to this action) NEC has now accepted the PSB’s invitation, asserting that the PSB’s March 19 and November 29 Orders require an immediate shutdown during the Interim Period despite this Court’s prior rulings.

Also note you can see many relevant filings at the Energy Education Project website, by following links from this page: Dockets for Public Service Board and Courts.
------

This is the updated post.  I took the word "Update" out of the title, because it has been updated for several days already.

The correction for the update was  the following:

Entergy brought this request for injunction in Federal Court,  on the same docket as the main lawsuit in federal court.  It was not a new suit, and it was not brought in Vermont Supreme Court.  In my original post, I said this was a new suit in Vermont Supreme Court.  The post has been changed to show that correction.