Exelon Buys FitzPatrick

Exelon has just purchased FitzPatrick  from Entergy.  More information at this Times Union article.

Fitz will keep operating!

FitzPatrick

Monday: Rally for Nuclear at the New York State Capital

State House, Albany New York

The Standard and the Rally

New York State is considering a Clean Energy Standard that includes nuclear power plants. This is a big deal.  Many states have Renewable Portfolio Standards that give preference and subsidies to renewables, supposedly in the interest of preventing climate change, but give no value to the fact that nuclear plants do not emit carbon dioxide, any more than wind turbines do.

This coming Monday, there's an important hearing at the New York State Capital about the Clean Energy Standard.   Two organizations: Environmental Progress and Mothers for Nuclear,  are coordinating a rally in Albany for the standard.  After the rally,  we will attend the hearing. I say "we" because  I will be there, hopefully with some others from this area. I'm driving 140 miles to attend, and I am glad to do it!

 Hopefully, the Clean Energy Standard will be enacted, and nuclear plants will be given credit for their clean-air qualities!

If you are interested in coming to the rally, but not sure...email me offline at mjangwin at gmail.

This is very exciting, and I am happy about it.

New York and Vermont

This possibility/ probability in New York shows that nuclear can make progress and get support.  I am very pleased with this development, and happy that nuclear supporters who have been in Albany will go to the plant area for an extension of their rally. The people of Oswego have every reason to be proud of themselves for their work in gaining support for nuclear plants.  Shellenberger gives them abundant credit in his article on How to Save a Nuclear Plant.

However, the contrast with Vermont makes me sad.

In New York, the Governor was in favor of keeping the upstate plants operating. (He wanted to shut Indian Point, however.)  In Vermont, when Peter Shumlin ran for governor the first time, I swear Shumlin was running against Vermont Yankee more than he was running against Brian Dubie.  As a matter of fact, he told Brian Dubie that Dubie  cared more the shareholders of  "Entergy Louisiana"  than he cared about the people of Vermont.  Here's my blog post on that: Taking It Personal: Shumlin Accuses Dubie of Serving the Interests of "Entergy Louisiana."

All politics is local, and local politics in Vermont can be painful.

Relevant Links:

Here's Environmental Progress's review of the history of the standard: How to Save a Nuclear Plant, by Michael Shellenberger.

Here's the schedule and sign-up link for the rally. It starts at 8:30 a.m. in Albany, and then moves on to the plant area (Oswego) later in the afternoon. Save the Climate rally information.  I personally will not be going to Oswego, but I expect that many people in that area will be glad to see people who went to Albany to defend their plants!


Here is my July 17 blog post on writing in support of the Clean Energy Standard. It  includes a link to the standard itself. Write a Comment! Support New York Nuclear Plants.

And if you can't come to the rally, you can donate to Environmental Progress with the Donate button on this page. 

Write a comment! Support New York Nuclear Plants

Fitzpatrick plant

The Clean Energy Standard

New York State has proposed a Clean Energy Standard which would support not just renewables, but ALL clean energy, including nuclear power.  Implementing this standard would keep the upstate nuclear plants operating.

The comment period on the standard was supposed to close tomorrow.  But, the comment period  has been extended until Friday July 22.  Here's where to comment.

http://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/Comments/PublicComments.aspx?MatterCaseNo=15-E-0302

What is the Clean Energy Standard?

It's a proposal to support all clean energy power plants: both renewable and nuclear.  Here's the staff proposal under current review:

https://www.scribd.com/document/317819837/PSC-staff-proposal#from_embed

And here's one of many newspaper articles on the subject:

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2016/07/nuke_subsidies_ny_extends_comment_period_but_aims_at_aug_1_decision.html

Michael Shellenberger has an excellent article on the subject: http://www.environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2016/7/13/in-wake-of-deal-to-save-fitzpatrick-james-hansen-other-scientists-environmentalists-urge-new-york-to-protect-nuclear-plants

Please comment  and post about it and send links to your friends in New York State!

It is also worthwhile to comment on some of the newspaper articles, but the main thing is: comment to the New York Department of Public Service.   (This is the same link as the first link.  I'm just trying to make it VERY easy to get to the place where you can comment to the New York Department of Public Service.)

The comment extension

Ummm....the people who asked for the comment period to be extended are NOT friends of nuclear energy. You can bet that they are getting their act together  for a major blitz next week.

Send in your pro-nuclear comments!
------

Examples and ideas for comments

The  Environmental Progress organization has good information and example comments on this Google Drive.  


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rp5WnQ2s3BwFYohdJr9Zud2ipLoV6vrHZO4f7TMNYlI/mobilebasic

My own comment is below:

Nuclear is the largest source of zero-emissions energy in New York State.  If we are serious about lowering (or holding steady) on carbon dioxide, we must keep the nuclear plants running.  I live in Vermont, and when Vermont Yankee closed, the carbon emissions on the New England grid rose by 5 to 7% by various calculations. The 7% is from Utility Dive magazine, an industry publication.  It is based on numbers from the New England grid operator.  http://www.utilitydive.com/news/iso-ne-emissions-rose-after-vermont-yankee-nuclear-facility-closed/414404/

All existing zero-emission sources need support!  If people pick and choose: ooh, I don't like nuclear or ooh, I don't like hydro or ooh, wind turbines are terrible, then these existing  zero emission sources WILL be closed.  And they WILL be replaced by fossil.  It is as simple as that, really.

I am in favor of nuclear for the future, but if someone doesn't like to build more nuclear, that is about policy for the future.  For  right now: Keep and Support the Existing Zero Emissions Sources that we have!  Close Fossil First!

Renewables are heavily supported for their zero-emissions qualities, and nuclear deserves some similar support.

Please move forward on the Clean Energy Standard to protect our zero-emission sources.

Save Fitzpatrick: An Opportunity to Help

Fitzpatrick Nuclear plant is now the subject of a hard-hitting website, Upstate Energy Jobs.  The name of the site's video expresses why Fitzpatrick should be saved: This is What Closing a Power Plant Looks Like. (Video is also embedded below.)

You can take action to save the plant. On the home page, there are links to Sign the Petition and a link to Contact the Governor.   I urge you to follow both links.  Also, I encourage you to explore the website, which includes links to news about Fitzpatrick.

From the About page of the website:  Upstate Energy Jobs is funded by the County of Oswego Industrial Development Agency.  All hail to the sensible people of Upstate New York!  (My husband was born and raised in Upstate New York.)

Go to the Home Page, sign the petition, write an email to the Governor. I am grateful to Oswego Industrial Development Agency for building a page with convenient links--to help us make a difference.




Sad side note: Can you imagine any official Windham County governmental organization doing anything to save the jobs at Vermont Yankee?  I can't.  Looking back at everything, I am amazed by the lack of community feeling in greater Windham County.  End note.

Since upstate New York has a local movement that is trying to save the plant, let's help them.

Pilgrim, Fitzpatrick, Rod Adams, and The Boxer

The Double Shock

Yesterday, Rod Adams wrote about the double shock of Pilgrim and Fitzpatrick closing.  It was a terrible set of events. We need every nuclear plant to keep operating.  We need them for their clean reliable power, for their ability to supply power without greenhouse gases and nitrogen oxides, for their ability to supply power during polar vortexes and other fossil-fuel supply crunches.

Adams said this better than I can, in the post
Deeply troubled by FitzPatrick and Pilgrim announcements. We need their clean electricity production to continue

A long time ago, I did a post: I am not Spock, at the American Nuclear Society blog. In this post, I wrote that I am not Spock.  I am a person with emotions.  I am committed to nuclear energy for the sake of my children and grandchildren.  This is an emotional commitment, as well as a logical energy choice.  I am having a deep emotional reaction, a reaction of grief, to the closing of these two plants.

The Serenity Prayer

Adams post includes his thoughts about the Serenity Prayer:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

I value the serenity prayer, but I don't completely follow it.  If I try to change something, and I don't succeed, was I therefore unwise? If I tried to make something good happen, but it didn't happen, was I lacking in wisdom, because the thing I tried to accomplish ended up being a "thing I cannot change"?

On the other hand, when a friend called two days ago to tell me that her cancer was no longer in remission, I clung to the serenity prayer. "I cannot change this. I cannot change this.  I can only accept it.  I can only do one thing: keep being her friend, whatever that will mean in the future."

Showing up and paying attention

This is the mantra that I use about my activism. For some issues, I find it more powerful than the serenity prayer.

Part of my comment on Adams blog post:

I personally find this mantra more helpful:
– Show up
– Pay attention
– Tell the truth
– Don’t be attached to the consequences.

In this mantra, when the consequences are not what I would like, I tell myself “Well, I did the first three steps” as opposed to “I can’t tell the difference, can I?” And I can say: “Oh well, the fourth one is always the hardest, but I did the first three.”

The Boxer

I decided to head this post with Simon and Garfunkel's The Boxer. I have been listening to it, somewhat compulsively, in the past few days.

The Boxer "carries a reminder," he carries a scar, from every blow that hurt him. He has been hurt so badly that he wanted to quit, hurt so badly that he said he would quit.

But The Boxer doesn't quit.

The last line is:
"But the fighter still remains."

Thank you

Thank you to Rod Adams for his posts and his courage.  Thank you to everyone who works in the nuclear industry, giving us clean power and clean air.  And thank you to everyone who defends the industry.

The fighter still remains.

Updated: Nuclear Blogger Carnival 285, Here at Yes Vermont Yankee

Once again, we are proud to host the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers, right here at Yes Vermont Yankee.  The Carnival is a compendium of nuclear blogs that rotates from blog site to blog site, and it is always a pleasure and an honor to host it.

I am happy to update it with new posts…and unhappy to update it with the news that the Fitzpatrick plant will close.

Nuke Power Talk -- Gail Marcus

Scary Energy Scenarios: My Real Fears on Halloween.

At Nuke Power Talk, Gail Marcus reflects on the Halloween holiday and conjures up futures that are scarier than ghosts and goblins.  When short-sighted policies and misinformed views dominate energy decisions, these futures can go from being scary to--being scary and being real.

Salaries by Degree Field (Update---new post)

In another blog from Gail Marcus at Nuke Power Talk, she reports on the results of a salary survey by academic degree field.  Engineering fields in general ranked high, and nuclear engineering was #2 for mid-career alumni out of 319 academic fields surveyed.

Energy Reality Project--Rick Maltese

Educating a new nuclear workforce: Guest post by Beth Kelly (Update--new post0

This is a post about filling new nuclear jobs in a hypothetical growing market.  However, unless you assume that all nuclear plants in the country will close within ten years (an unwarranted assumption), you must notice that about half the workers at nuclear plants will retire within ten years.  And that leads to job opportunities for younger workers.

Audio version of Chapter 8 of Maltese's book: Energy Reality, a Necessary Renaissance (Update--new post)

Rick Maltese is writing a book he titles Energy Reality: A Necessary Renaissance. He has been posting his chapters at patreon, a crowd-funding website.  This is the first audio sample.

Atomic Insights-- Rod Adams

Several important nuclear energy developments from the Westinghouse press office

Westinghouse announced that the first two  reactor coolant pumps for their AP1000 reactor have passed all qualification tests and should arrive at the Sanmen site in China for installation by Dec 31, 2015.

The next day, Westinghouse announced that they are buying the nuclear plant construction assets of CB&I, their partner at Plant Vogtle and VC Summer.

An excellent discussion of the facts and implications, and of course, a very lively comment stream.

 Yes Vermont Yankee--Meredith Angwin (update, bad news)

Ginna continues operation, surcharges in context, and Fitzpatrick

The Ginna nuclear power plant has been received some financial relief, and will keep operating for at least another 18 months. Sadly, Entergy announced today that the Fitzpatrick plant will close (the post include links to articles about Fitzpatrick.)  In this blog post, Angwin compares the financial relief to Ginna to other electricity surcharges, including Vermont's own local "Efficiency Vermont" charges (much higher than the Ginna per-household costs) and the cost of proposed carbon taxes.

ANS Nuclear Cafe--Ted Besmann

The Power of Nuclear Energy

In this post, Besmann describes some of the economic hazards that currently face the U.S. fleet of nuclear plants.  The EPA proposed clean power rule gives less than 6% credit to emissions reduction from nuclear plants, for example. At the same time, the EPA claims that it would be worth paying  an extra $12 to $17 dollars per ton of CO2 that is not emitted.  But this monetary value is theoretical and not available to nuclear plants.

Update: Fitzpatrick to close.Ginna Continues Operation, Surcharges in Context, and Fitzpatrick

Ginna Nuclear Power Station

Update: Entergy announces Fitzpatrick closing

Fitzpatrick now scheduled to close in 2016 or 2017.  Announcement was this morning.  Two links:

Entergy press release
Syracuse.com article




Ginna gets some relief

Ginna Nuclear Generating Station, in upstate New York, was struggling with some of the same issues that are causing Entergy's Fitzpatrick plant to be at risk.

If Ginna closed down, there might be reliability issues on the grid. Therefore,  Ginna was recently given 18 months of financial relief to keep it operating. Ginna is being helped by a surcharge on utility bills: the surcharge lasts from now till March 2017. The surcharge will give Ginna $15.42 million extra per month, in payment for its role in grid reliability.  This charge will cost about $2 per month per customer, in upstate New York.

References: Deal reached on fate of Western New York nuclear facility at Poltico New York (October 23), and Settlement reached in New York to keep the Ginna nuclear plant running at Utility Dive (September 16).

The possibility of this type of positive resolution (for the grid and for the plant) is a good reason to

Sign the petition to keep Fitzpatrick operating! 

If you live in New York, contact your state legislator and your congressman, and urge them to keep Fitzpatrick operating. 

What about the ratepayer?

Maybe this relief is great for the grid and the plant, but what about the ratepayer?  What about that

Fracking equipment
at wellhead
Wikipedia

$2.00 per month?

I'm not crazy about more costs to the ratepayer.  If I thought that increasing costs for the ratepayer was a good thing, I would join one of the "environmental" groups that believe electricity should be more expensive--in order to force people to use less electricity.  Instead, I am proud to be on the Coordinating Committee for the Consumer Liaison Group at ISO-NE.  I want to look out for the ratepayer.

With some hesitation, therefore, I share my opinion on the Ginna settlement. I think, in the long run, this settlement is good for the ratepayer, because without it, most of the pricing structure in New York would be held hostage to the fluctuating price of natural gas.

 If the utilities were not "deregulated," any decent utility would want a mix of types of plants on its grid. This mix would be a hedge against sudden jumps in prices for one fuel, sudden jumps in regulatory burden for another type of power plant, etc.

Now that we are "deregulated," the plant that is cheapest today can act as if it were going to be cheapest forever.  Other plants will close down, out-competed---but perhaps only for five years. Then when the once-cheapest fuel type becomes more expensive, the rate-payer is hung out to dry.

It takes many years to site, permit and build a power plant.  Meanwhile, in a single-fuel grid, the grid and the rate-payer have no choices.

Surcharges and Fitzpatrick

I decided to do a quick comparison of some local surcharges on electricity.  I will do this comparison in one-year units..

Ginna: $15.4 million per month, twelve months, $184 million/year, $2 per month per household, $24 a year per household.

Efficiency Vermont.  This utility has a visible surcharge on every Vermont householder's electricity bill.  It charges more than 1 cent per kWh, for all Vermont households.  For an average user (600 kWh/month) the surcharge is be about $7 per month or $84 a year per household.

Households pay this amount, and so do businesses.  IBM (now GlobalFoundries) rebelled, and the legislature enacted SMEEP for large businesses. Large business who make their own efficiency improvements can opt-out of Efficiency Vermont payments, by way of SMEEP. However, only GlobalFoundries qualifies for SMEEP.

Efficiency Vermont helps Vermonters insulate their houses, save energy, etc.  Unfortunately, in practice, this means that Efficiency Vermont collects surcharges from the many, and gives rebates to the few.  (What, me worry? I was one of the few. Efficiency Vermont  helped pay to insulate my house.)

Efficiency Vermont has been controversial, to say the least. Two examples:
Op-ed by Andrew Rudin:  Efficiency Vermont not so efficient.
Vermont Public Radio story: House brings down budget axe on Efficiency Vermont.

Carbon Tax: There is a proposed carbon tax in Vermont, which would start at $10 per ton of carbon dioxide and rise to $100 a ton.  This would eventually lead to a gasoline tax of $0.88 per gallon. This  tax is only proposed, of course.  Still, it gives an idea of what Vermont legislators are thinking nowadays.  (The article about the tax includes 200 comments.)  Meanwhile, an op-ed In Favor of a Carbon Pollution Tax was written by two people who identify themselves with a local anti-nuclear group. They support the carbon tax proposal.

In context

I am going to stop now.  I don't want this to be a treatise on every surcharge on the local grid. However, in context, it is clear that a surcharge for Fitzpatrick nuclear power is likely to be:

• small (compared to Efficiency Vermont or to carbon taxes)
• fair (everyone gets the benefit of stable prices on the grid, as opposed to some people get house insulation and some people get only higher electric bills)
• controversial (no surprise here)

Meanwhile:

Sign the petition to keep Fitzpatrick operating! 

If you live in New York, contact your state legislator and your congressman, and urge them to keep Fitzpatrick operating. 

Carbon taxes and the Fitzpatrick plant: a reason to sign the petition

The petition

There's a petition to save the Fitzpatrick plant.  The petition is addressed to Entergy.  I think it should be addressed to Governor Cuomo, as you can tell by my post on Governor Cuomo, Fitzpatrick and Money.  At any rate, I signed the petition.

http://www.savefitzpatrick.com

I encourage you to sign the petition to show support of Fitzpatrick.  More signatures will be a good thing, wherever the petition is addressed.

Carbon dioxide taxes?

Some of the people who signed the petition also left comments.  I was particularly struck by a comment that noted that many states are considering carbon taxes.  If carbon is taxed, that will increase people's electricity bills. If Fitzpatrick is not running, and most of its power is made by natural gas plants, there will be an increase in people's electricity bills.

I decided to do a quick and dirty calculation of the amount of money Fitzpatrick will save New Yorkers…if there is a carbon tax.  Here's my calculation, and my sources.  I invite comments and corrections.

Fitzpatrick and carbon taxes:

How much energy: 
Fitzpatrick makes 838 MW of dependable capability. Source, Entergy Nuclear.
There are 8760 hours in a year.
I assumed a 90% capacity factor, which is on the low side for the nuclear fleet.
At that point, we have 838 MW x 1000 kW per MW x 8760 hours per year x 0.9 hours operating per year, and we have

Fitzpatrick produces 6,606,792,000 kWh in a year of operation.

Saving how much carbon:
Okay, now, what if that power was produced by a gas-fired plant?

Gas plants make, on average, 1.21 lbs of carbon dioxide per kWh. Source: EIA

This number is an average for gas-fired plants, and no doubt someone will come up with a lower number, with the assumption that only bright shiny new combined cycle plants should be counted.  Since these shiny new plants would still only be part of the local fleet of gas plants, I will stick with my number.

carbon dioxide

So, now we have 7,994,218,000 lbs of carbon dioxide being produced if Fitzpatrick nuclear station is replaced by gas plants.  And now, a brief pause to realize that that Fitzpatrick save 7 billion pounds of carbon dioxide per year.

Next, let's look at money.

In terms of carbon taxes:
Carbon taxes. This is where it gets a little tricky. There are plenty of carbon tax bills introduced, often for as much as $40 per ton.  However, that feels a little theoretical for me.  I can't find a place where a carbon tax is really that high.

So I went to a website that compares carbon taxes, world-wide, and came to the conclusion that $20/ton, as in British Columbia, was a number that I was more comfortable with using.

 7,994,218,000 lbs of carbon dioxide x 1 ton/2000 lbs is 3,997,109 tons of carbon dioxide.

At $20/per ton, this would be $79,942,183 dollars paid in carbon taxes, by the citizens of New York, to support the natural gas power that would replace Fitzpatrick.

Call to Action!

Assuming only modest carbon tax is introduced, a tax at half the number ($40/ton) that is often bandied about, continued operation of Fitzpatrick will save the ratepayers of New York, about $80 million a year in carbon taxes. If the big number ($40/ton) is used, Fitzpatrick will save ratepayers $160 million a year in carbon taxes.

In short, if the state of New York is serious about reducing carbon dioxide and saving money for all ratepayers, a modest amount of support to Fitzpatrick is in the interest of everyone in the state.

(And that doesn't even count the well-known volatility of natural gas prices. Natural gas won't be cheap forever.)

So, your action is simple:

Sign the petition! 

And, if you live in New York, contact your state legislator and your congressman.

Governor Cuomo, Fitzpatrick, and Money

Fitzpatrick Plant

James A Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant

 Early this fall, Entergy announced that both the Pilgrim plant and Fitzpatrick plant were losing money, and that Entergy would soon decide whether to continue operating those plants. Entergy said they would make the decision by the end of October.

The Pilgrim plant has been decided: Vice President Bill Mohl of Entergy announced that the Pilgrim plant in Massachusetts would close by 2019.  At the same press conference, Mohl said that Entergy has not yet made a decision about whether it would to continue to operate the James A. Fitzpatrick plant in New York State. (You can read about the press conference here, and even see the video of the whole conference.)

Entergy has not made the decision about Fitzpatrick.  However, on October 16, Entergy took a $965 million charge against earnings, writing down the value of the Fitzpatrick plant by that amount.  (Yes, that's about a billion-dollar write-down.)

The people in the Fitzpatrick area do not want the plant to close. Hundreds  of people in upstate New York rallied in favor the plant. You can see a short video of the rally here; the video includes interviews with local legislators who support the plant. The Syracuse.com article that describes the write-down also has more than thirty pictures of the rally.

Negotiating with the Governor

Andrew Cuomo

Entergy is attempting to negotiate a deal with New York State that would keep Fitzpatrick open.  As quoted in the Time-Warner article and video about the rally, State Sen. Patty Ritchie said: "I've been in a number of conversations with the governor's staff and also had an opportunity to talk to the governor, he's engaged in the issue."

However, Governor Cuomo's engagement is something that is rather hard to define.  Despite the fact that Entergy closed Pilgrim and despite the fact that Entergy took almost a billion-dollar write-down on the Fitzpatrick plant, Cuomo is treating the situation as if it is all about….well, all about him.

Cuomo's view is that Entergy is threatening the state with "job losses" and Entergy won't get away with this. Yes, Cuomo himself plans to stand up to Entergy, despite their "threats." What a guy! (sarcasm alert)

A quote from a letter Cuomo sent to Entergy, as reported by Tim Knauss in Syracuse.com:

I strongly caution Entergy not to use the threat of job losses as a means of prodding economic relief to help their bottom line. This tactic has been attempted by others i‎n the past and has been unsuccessful. In this state, an entity called the Public Service Commission has oversight over services deemed to be in the statewide public's best interests.

Entergy should keep that in mind. Any decisions will be made on the merits 

Entergy didn't write an answer to Cuomo directly. Instead, Vice President Bill Mohl wrote a note to the employees which indirectly referenced the Cuomo's accusations of "threatening job losses."  Once again,  Knauss has the story in Syracuse.com.  Here's a quote from the Mohl letter to the employees:

While we have been unsuccessful to date, our discussions [with the state] are continuing as we approach a final decision. Quite frankly, our desire has been to engage in meaningful discussions regarding continued operations of Fitzpatrick without first having to provide formal notification of a Fitzpatrick shutdown decision to the State of New York, as some have indicated is necessary. Most recently, we have heard inaccurate claims that we are "holding employees hostage" or "only seeking to improve our bottom line." That is simply not the truth. We are facing substantial financial challenges at Fitzpatrick and have been negotiating in good faith with New York State over the last several months to obtain certainty for this facility.

I am Shocked, Shocked

Governor Cuomo acts as if New York State has never made any kind of concession to attract or keep a business. He is shocked that a business would ask for such a thing, in order to continue to employ people in New York. He is shocked, shocked!

Meanwhile, here in Vermont, we can only envy the deep pockets and major financial concessions that New York gives to businesses.

New York basically outbid Vermont to have a new wafer fabrication plant placed in their state.  New York was able to offer $1.865 billion dollars in concessions to the plant owners, the emirate of Abu Dhabi. Poor little Vermont could offer---a $4.5 million dollar "Enterprise Incentive Fund." (An existing plant in Vermont will continue operating, however.)  It's a long story, and well told in this VTDigger article Global Foundries to Keep IBM Plant in Essex Going. Some quotes:

GlobalFoundries’ footprint in New York vastly outstrips that of Vermont. The company…is wholly owned by the emirate of Abu Dhabi…..

New York state has offered GlobalFoundries about $1.865 billion in financial incentives to establish itself in the state, according to a recent situational analysis of IBM’s plant in Essex Junction by the Greater Burlington Industrial Corp.

In May, the Vermont Legislature budgeted for a $4.5 million Enterprise Incentive Fund, which Gov. Peter Shumlin can tap at his discretion with limited legislative oversight….

Perhaps when Governor Cuomo gets over his advanced state of shock, he can think about agreeing to some small concessions to keep a steady, reliable electricity supplier, with a steady, reliable payroll, operating in his state.  He won't even have to figure out how to explain why he is sending almost $2 billion dollars of New York taxpayer money to Abu Dhabi.  Because he won't be sending any money to Abu Dhabi!

By keeping Fitzpatrick operating, Cuomo will be taking care of his own people.  I think that is what a governor is supposed to do. I urge him to do so.