Vermont Yankee Shut Down Today. Guest Post from VTEP

Vermont Yankee went off the grid at 12:12 p.m. today and was completely shut down at 1:04 p.m.

Brad Ferland of  VTEP issued the statement below, and I am pleased to publish it here.


Vermont Energy Partnership salutes Vermont Yankee on final day of operation

Today marks the final day of electricity production for Vermont Yankee. Since its first day of operations in 1972, Vermont Yankee has generated low-cost and low-carbon electricity totaling about three-quarters of the electricity produced in Vermont. For 42 years, it has provided approximately 650 high-paying jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of local and state tax revenue. The generous employees of Vermont Yankee have donated millions of dollars’ worth of time and treasure to area schools and social services.  Today, the final day of power operations, the Vermont Energy Partnership salutes Vermont Yankee for its many economic, environmental, and societal contributions to Vermont’s quality of life. We wish Vermont Yankee management and workers a smooth decommissioning.


 Brad Ferland, President


The Vermont Energy Partnership (www.vtep.org) is a diverse group of more than 90 business, labor, and community leaders committed to finding clean, affordable and reliable electricity solutions. Its mission is to educate policy makers, the media, businesses, and the general public about why electricity is imperative for prosperity, and about the optimal solutions to preserve and expand our electricity network. Entergy, owner of Vermont Yankee, is a member of the Vermont Energy Partnership.

Natural Gas
The future of the grid

-----

Some other links:

The Entergy press release on the closing, as it appears in the Brattleboro Reformer.  The press release gives a concise history of the plant.

Entergy's VYDecommissioning page has a video thanking Vermont and many links to articles.

Nuclear Matters, a pro-industry group, also has a press release about the plant closing. This release could be described as "there goes grid diversity."

Rod Adams wrote a blog post about Vermont Yankee: the post expresses a lot of what we are all feeling. You may enjoy reading it. Should groups that celebrate loss of 600 MWe of reliable, ultra-low emission nuclear be called “environmental?”

-----

I find it personally too difficult to write about this today.  Soon, I hope I will write something. Soon.

I decided to go with a natural gas image instead of a Vermont Yankee image for this article.  We're all supposed to look forward, aren't we?

Reasons the Public Service Board Should Approve the CPG for Vermont Yankee: Guest Post by Guy Page of VTEP

Five Reasons Why the Vermont Public Service Board Should Approve
the Certificate of Public Good for Vermont Yankee

A Settlement Agreement announced on December 23, 2013 by Gov. Peter Shumlin, Attorney General William Sorrell, the State of Vermont, and Entergy recommends that the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) approve the Certificate of Public Good (CPG) for Vermont Yankee to continue to operate until the end of 2014. The plant’s continued operation through the year will help to ensure a smooth transition of Vermont Yankee to a closed, decommissioning power facility. Without approval of the CPG, the Settlement Agreement will likely be nullified. The following are five reasons why the PSB should approve the CPG by its deadline of March 31, 2014.

The proposed CPG…

1. Enjoys broad support and resolves major legal and economic quagmires

Both the State of Vermont and Entergy support the Settlement Agreement and the CPG. Without a CPG, the Vermont Yankee situation will revert to the pre-December 23 status of expensive legal wrangling, job uncertainty for plant employees, no cash for economic development or renewable power, and no agreement on decommissioning.

2. Prompts an accelerated decommissioning and enables enactment of a prompt, detailed decommissioning plan

The agreement establishes the potential for  a more prompt decommissioning and site restoration than would otherwise be required by federal law. Entergy commits to filing a site assessment by December 31, 2014 – many months sooner than required by federal law – and featuring evaluation of the costs of both SAFSTOR (extended) and DECON (more prompt) decommissioning.

3. Will release millions of dollars for site restoration

Within 30 days of the issuance of the CPG, Entergy has agreed to establish a separate site restoration trust fund with an initial deposit of $10 million.  This is the first installment of $25 million that will be provided by 2017.

4. Helps transition Vermont to a renewable energy future

Within 30 days of the issuance of the CPG, Entergy has agreed to contribute $5.2 million into the Vermont Clean Energy Development Fund, with half of this money earmarked for the benefit of Windham County.

5. Provides a boost for the economy

For each of the next five years – 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 – Entergy has agreed to pay $2 million per year to the State of Vermont to promote economic development in Windham County. By April 15, 2015, Entergy has agreed to make a $5 million tax payment to the State of Vermont.

---------

The Vermont Energy Partnership (www.vtep.org) is a diverse group of more than 90 business, labor, and community leaders committed to finding clean, affordable and reliable electricity solutions.  Its mission is to educate policy makers, the media, businesses, and the general public about why electricity is imperative for prosperity, and about the optimal solutions to preserve and expand our electricity network.  Entergy, owner of Vermont Yankee, is a member of the Vermont Energy Partnership.

Infographic from VTEP, used by permission.

Blog post by Guy Page of VTEP, who is a frequent guest blogger at this blog.

Meredith Angwin's earlier post on this subject is The Proposed Entergy Settlement is Good for Vermont.  

Common Ground on Vermont Yankee: Guest Post by Brad Ferland

Vermont finally has found common ground on Vermont Yankee

By Brad Ferland, President
Vermont Energy Partnership

Brad Ferland
November 2012 PSB meeting

When the State of Vermont holds a major public hearing about Vermont Yankee and almost no-one attends, what does it mean?

I was asking myself this question as I waited, virtually alone, to testify at a well-announced public hearing Tuesday, January 14 in the Vermont Interactive Television studio in Williston. The subject of Vermont Yankee usually draws a big, passionate crowd, with both supporters and opponents eager to express their views. Yet on this night, most of the state's 13 interactive TV studios were empty. I was the only person to testify in the only studio located in populous Chittenden County.  For lack of testimony, the meeting ended an hour and a half earlier than scheduled.

The Vermont Public Service Board had called the meeting to solicit comment from all Vermonters about Vermont Yankee's request to operate through the end of 2014. A PSB decision on whether to grant a Certificate of Public Good, a requirement for the plant to continue to operate in 2014, is expected by March 31.

A lot is riding on that decision. In the recent years through 2012, Vermont Yankee provided about a third of all electricity consumed in Vermont, and still had plenty to sell to the rest of New England. Since opening in the early 1970’s, Vermont Yankee has made about three-quarters of the total power produced in Vermont. Last August, plant owner Entergy announced that (due mostly to the very low market cost of electricity), the plant would close in 2014.

On December 23, the State of Vermont and Entergy announced a master settlement of most of their differences. The agreement says Entergy will close the plant, proceed with safe, responsible decommissioning, and will pay $10 million for economic re-development of Windham County and $5.2 million into a state fund for renewable power. Both sides will drop the many expensive legal disputes now in federal courts.

Board member David Coen, Board Chairman James Volz
Board member John Burke

The agreement also specifically requires Public Service Board approval to operate Vermont Yankee through 2014. So if approval is denied, the settlement falls apart and has to be entirely re-negotiated or litigated. Supporters of the settlement include Governor Peter Shumlin, Attorney General William Sorrell, and many legislative leaders.

The financial aid is a continuation of Vermont Yankee's longstanding practice of supporting the Windham County economy and the state's renewable power future. The plant has long been the cornerstone of the local economy and virtually the sole funder of the Vermont Clean Energy Development Fund. Entergy needs PSB approval because the plant's workers need to know they will have their jobs until sometime near the end of this year, giving them time to find new work, homes, and schools. In short, PSB approval is highly desirable for Vermont Yankee workers, for the area's economic recovery, and for the state's renewable power future.

I appeared at the hearing to tell the Public Service Board essentially what I have been saying since co-founding the Partnership seven years ago: an operational Vermont Yankee helps the economy, ratepayers, taxpayers, and environment of our beloved state. Indeed, even without a settlement agreement, Vermont Yankee’s continued operation is in the state’s best interest.

And now finally I return to the question: why didn't more people attend? Perhaps it is because, as Attorney General Sorrell said at the Dec. 23 master settlement announcement, it is time for peace. Most Vermonters, at long last, have found common ground on Vermont Yankee. Under the settlement, the plant will close; the expensive federal lawsuits are history; economic and environmental needs are addressed. It's a good deal for everyone and the PSB should swiftly approve the Certificate of Public Good.

----------
Brad Ferland, a resident of St. Albans Town, is president of the Vermont Energy Partnership (www.vtep.org), a Montpelier-based coalition of more than 90 businesses, labor organizations, not-for-profits, and individuals committed to a clean, safe, affordable, and reliable energy future for Vermont.

Vermont a more "dazzling" nuclear power producer than a solar producer: Guest post by Guy Page

Vermont is a more "dazzling" nuclear power producer than a solar producer
By Guy Page

Vermont produces about one nuclear kilowatt per capita, compared to 34 watts solar

The Dazzling Solar Story

Rooftop Solar  Middlebury College VT

According to a new study by Environment America, Vermont is now a member of the “Dazzling Dozen,” the 12 states with the highest per-capita use of solar power. The Vermont Public Interest Research Group July 23 used the study to call for even more subsidized PV power generation. News about the study, including the Vermont Energy Partnership’s perspective, may be seen in the July 24 Burlington Free Press.

The big, untold story is that Vermont produces more nuclear power as a percentage of overall production than any other state in the country.  In fact, as detailed below, we produce eight times as much nuclear power as we do all non-hydro renewables, including solar power. In order to reduce carbon emissions and to have reliable, cost competitive power it will be important to keep and expand nuclear power while we also expand the use of renewables like solar. This is not only the view of the Vermont Energy Partnership; it is the view of U.S. Energy Secretary Dr. Ernest Moniz and President Obama.

Now-- the calculations

According to the U.S. Census, Vermont’s 2012 population is 626,000.

According to the US Energy Information Administration, nuclear power accounted for about three-fourths of the electricity generated within Vermont in 2011, a higher share than any other State.

Electrical output is best measured in megawatt-hours (MWh). According to the current US EIA state energy profile, Vermont produces a total of 516,000 MWh; of this, 356,000 MWh (69%) is nuclear power, all of it from Vermont Yankee, of course. By comparison, all non-hydro renewable generation together totals 42,000 MWh (8%), most of it wind.

Therefore, using MWh as a yardstick: 0.56 MWh (568,690 watt/hours) per Vermonter from Vermont Yankee alone; from all non-hydro renewables combined, .07 (67,092 watt/hours) per Vermonter.

Rather than using MWh as yardstick, however, the solar study you cite uses capacity figures. Vermont Yankee has a rated capacity of 620 megawatts. That is 620,000,000 watts. Vermont Yankee therefore has a per capita capacity of about 1000 watts – roughly a kilowatt, or about 29 times the 34 watt per capita capacity of Vermont solar power cited in the study. It is important to note that in Vermont, solar power operates at about 10-15% capacity, while most nuclear power plants are 24/7/365 “base load” plants operating at about 90% capacity.

Comparing Power Sources

1000 watts per capita for Vermont Yankee compared to 34 watts for solar power. .56 MWh per capita for Vermont Yankee, compared to .07 MWh for all non-hydro renewables – that is a truly “dazzling” comparison. It is fair to note, however, that solar and nuclear power share enviable similarities. Both are considered “carbon-free” by the U.S. EIA. Numerous studies show that their “lifecycle” carbon dioxide output per kilowatt is virtually identical. Another positive similarity: both can be produced in Vermont, thus reaping benefits of jobs and state revenue.

The Partnership evaluates every potential power source through the prism of "safe, clean, affordable, reliable." Solar admirably fits the first two criteria. As to reliability: it can help the grid as a hot summer day power "peak" provider, although I'm not sold that this benefit justifies the expense. But affordable in its current, fixed-price, "if you can make it the utilities have to buy it" standard-offer form? No.

Solar in Context

Incentives are justified by the likely economic and environmental benefit. Therefore incentives for solar hot water heaters, which "replace" oil or electric powered units at a relatively low cost, would seem to make sense. However, Vermont must do better than promulgate as "energy policy" the practice of forcing ratepayers to pay guaranteed high rates for an increasing number of 2.2 MW, 10 year solar power contracts. Standard offer supporters say the price of solar power production will eventually fall. Vermont would do better to wait, or at best move cautiously, until this hope becomes a reality. If the goal is to be carbon-free, accessing more existing, low-carbon base load power sources (notably nuclear and hydro) would be a suitable policy goal.  

In Germany, Spain, and even in the Northeast Kingdom, Vermont town of Hardwick, ratepayers are complaining that they are being forced to subsidize the guaranteed high rates of solar power production. When the government gets into the business of picking energy production winners and losers, even for the best of reasons, affordability all too often becomes the first loser.

And finally, solar power boosters have no sound answer to the problem of intermittency. The modern-day power grid can't sustain more than 20% (give or take) intermittent power without risk of blackout, brownout, fires and damage. Even now, Green Mountain Power, Vermont’s largest utility, is unable to sell all of its Lowell Wind power due to "curtailment" by ISO-New England. The planned fix - a synchronous condenser - is likely to improve, but not completely solve, this vexing problem. The technology for intermittent into baseload just isn't "there" yet, but we are acting as if it is, or soon will be. This is not prudent.

Guy Page

In short, solar power has its place, and that place may grow more prominent in the future. But current state policy underestimates the inherent economic and transmission shortcomings of solar power.

-------
This guest post is written by Guy Page, Communications director of Vermont Energy Partnership (VTEP) . Page is a frequent guest blogger on this blog. His most recent post announced a new VTEP report: Review of the Vermont Energy Plan: VTEP Review.

Energy Policy is Key to Vermont's Future: Guest Post by Guy Page

Guy Page

Vermont has excellent prospects for strong and sustained economic growth and a high quality of life if it can fashion a more prudent energy policy.  This is a central conclusion in a recent report released by The New England Council, the nation’s oldest regional business organization.

First, the good news.

The report, Smart Infrastructure in New England: An Investment for Growth and Prosperity, finds that Vermont has an important structural advantage:  a lower cost, high-skill subregion known as the I-91 Corridor.  As a result, this area and two other regional corridors have “acceptable cost structures for industries making complex products and/or offering sophisticated services.”   This can be a catalyst for the creation of new businesses, quality jobs and business relocations, particularly from manufacturers and distribution facilities.

I-91 in context

The I-91 corridor offers production costs, says the report, “only four to five percent higher than that for the same product made in the Southeast. Salaries are relatively comparable, and any cost differences come mainly from higher taxes and energy prices in the Northeast.”

Unfortunately, energy is a glaring competitive weakness.  As the report says, “New England’s infrastructure lacks an energy resource that is both reliable and cost competitive. In fact, prices for energy in the region are double those of some southern U.S. states.”

All six New England states are among the 10 most expensive for electricity rates in America, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.  And recently, with the push to higher-priced, non-competitive, mandated renewable electricity sources, Vermont’s electricity prices have increased considerably.  EIA reports that for the 12 months ending October 31, 2012, Vermont’s electricity prices had risen 6.8 percent, more than any state east of the Mississippi.  In fact, prices have declined or stayed the same in most states.

The New England Council report also makes clear that for economic and environmental reasons it is important to keep New England’s four nuclear plants operating.  New England needs its own sources of affordable, reliable, grid-friendly, low-carbon electricity – an apt description for nuclear power. And because new power plant construction seems unlikely, New England must protect its assets, including Vermont Yankee.

As the report says, “The region’s four nuclear power facilities generate 30 percent of its electric energy. Nuclear energy is the only local fuel source and plays a big role in maintaining fuel diversity. Just as important, low operating costs make nuclear power an economical choice. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that new plants will be built in New England in the future, while prices would likely rise if a current plant were decommissioned. This is the economic rationale for keeping nuclear facilities operating.”

The Council’s report also drives home the downside of closing nuclear power plants as regulation of carbon and other emissions increases.  It says, “In addition to providing cost and reliability advantages, nuclear energy also plays an important role in attaining greenhouse gas reduction goals. Nuclear energy is an emission-free energy source, producing no carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, or sulfur dioxide….. If nuclear power plants were closed, new sources of energy would need to be emission-free to continue to meet emissions standards.”

The Council supports energy portfolio diversity, including renewables if shown to be cost-efficient, and recommends investment in transmission and natural gas generation. For Vermont, however, the most important “takeaway” from Smart Infrastructure is this: New England’s future prosperity will benefit from the continued operation of Vermont Yankee.

Policy makers need to take us away from policies that lead to higher energy prices and undermine the region’s competitiveness.  Vermont can and should have a bright future, as the New England Council envisions.  We also owe this to our children, so they can find the jobs, quality of life, and opportunities here in the Green Mountain state.

About the Author:  Guy Page is Communications Director for the Vermont Energy Partnership, a diverse group of more than 90 business, labor, and community leaders committed to finding clean, affordable and reliable electricity solutions.  Entergy, owner of Vermont Yankee, is a member of the Vermont Energy Partnership.  For additional information please visit www.vtep.org.