Vermont Yankee Gets Permission to Install Diesel

Late yesterday, the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) issued a Certificate of Public Good for the diesel generator at Vermont Yankee.  I link to their order issuing the certificate here.  

It's a 42 page order, fairly evenly divided between the history of the docket, boilerplate, and snark.  

The snarky part is their insistence that they are issuing this order because Vermont Yankee needs the diesel generator even if it were "in compliance" with their previous orders and was shut down.  (They do not actually have such a previous order...it is just implied within other orders.  They could have issued an order to shut down, but then they would find themselves in court...) The last two pages of this order, by one of the commissioners, is definitely worth reading. The commissioner blames Vermont Yankee for the delay in issuing the order!  Amusing, in a sort of sick way. (I am a blogger.  I have opinions.) 

Still, the whole thing was a win-win.  And the winners were:

• Vermont Yankee got permission to put in their diesel generator. 
• The Public Service Board had an opportunity to write about "their previous  orders," which they love to reference.  Since an order to shut the plant does not exist, they can't quote the actual order, but that's nit-picking. 
• The Public Service Board avoided federal court judgment about the diesels.  With this PSB ruling, the on-going federal court case became moot. The federal court will not rule against the PSB on the basis of pre-emption about nuclear safety equipment, because the case is moot. Therefore, the PSB can consider their honor intact.  Also, if the federal court had ruled against the PSB on pre-emption about the diesels, the state would look pretty bad in terms of  the main federal case about pre-emption

In short, the PSB dodged a major federal court bullet by issuing the certificate, and everybody wins. 

Have a great weekend!

Catching Up With the Diesels: Updated

A Diesel Deadline

Vermont Yankee needs new diesel generators as a safety back-up system. There will be two court hearings about this: today and tomorrow.

Basically, the Public Service Board (PSB) has been dragging their feet about granting permission to install the diesels.  Vermont Yankee must begin pouring the concrete for the diesel pad in mid-June to meet a Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirement to have the diesels in operation by mid-September.

The PSB has been seriously dragging their feet.  First the PSB took months to even set up the docket and open it (Vermont Yankee applied for the permit in August, the PSB issued a statement opening the docket in late December).  The PSB gave "intervenors" status in this matter, and plans to hold public hearings to hear what these groups have to say. (Hint to the PSB: the intervenors always say the same thing. If you want, you can ask me what they are going to say. I think I can tell you.) Recently, the hearing officer recommended that the diesel permit be granted, but the PSB did not amend the timing on its docket.

I blogged about the diesel time-line in two posts: The PSB, the Diesels and Sherlock Holmes about non-action also being action (like the famous "incident of the dog in the night-time") and A Court Case With A Deadline: The Black Start Diesels.  In that case, the deadline I was considering was Entergy's requirement to get the diesel pads ready.

Court Deadlines

Now, as the deadline approaches, two hearings are under way, today and tomorrow.

• Today, Entergy will be in federal court in Burlington, suing the state for interfering with nuclear safety by not granting permission to install safety diesels. 
• Tomorrow, in Montpelier, the PSB will hold an "oral argument" hearing on the diesels.

Andrew Stein of Vermont Digger has a post on these hearings: State, Entergy head to federal court Tuesday. Stein's article includes a quote from an intervenor's lawyer, Brice Jordan.  Jordan claims that since the state does not need Vermont Yankee, the diesel permit should not be granted. (Jordan also has said that he does not have to share information on hydro plants, but that was a different hearing.) In other words, in Jordan's opinion, the diesel hearings are a stand-in for the hearing on the certificate of public good for the whole plant. 

Jordan's opinion is not shared by the State Department of Public Service (DPS). The DPS makes a clear distinction between 

• the diesel permit, which they think should be approved
• the certificate of public good (CPG) for the plant operation, which they think should not be approved.

  In an earlier Vermont Digger article, the DPS commissioner, Chris Recchia, said: “This [the generator permit] has no relationship to the overall CPG for operation of the facility; it’s specific to the back-up generator, and we think they’ve done what they need to do."

Meanwhile, the state and Entergy are once again busy in court.  In my opinion, these court cases could have been avoided if the Public Service Board just knew how to spell "pre-empted." Court hearings are a very expensive way to learn to spell.  Yes. I'm a blogger, and I have opinions. 

Update: At the Federal Court hearing today, the state argued that Vermont Yankee didn't actually need all that time to put the diesels in place.  Meanwhile, nuclear opponents made statements implying: "Of course VY was going to get the diesels, why are we even in court about it?"

Well, let's see.  The long gap between when Entergy applied for the permit and when the PSB started working on the docket: that might be one reason they were in court.  The PSB's snarky "if Entergy is not in compliance with our earlier orders" comments: that might be another reason. I am sure you can think of more reasons.

Here's my link to John Dillon's VPR report on today's hearings.

Second Update: Andrew Stein's Vermont Digger article on the federal court hearing was just published.  It includes Cheryl Hanna's masterful description of the different possible outcomes of the diesel case before the PSB, and the implications of those outcomes for the federal hearings. Also, Hanna points out that the legal wrangling about "how many days does it take to install a diesel" isn't very relevant. Cheryl Hanna is a professor of constitutional law at Vermont Law School.   

Two links on other subjects

I was proud to be a participant in an important pod-cast on nuclear communication.  Peter Sandman Teaches Nuclear Communicators.   This was an Atomic Show podcast at Rod Adams blog, Atomic Insights.  Peter Sandman, Rod Adams, myself, Margaret Harding, and Suzy Hobbs-Baker participated. I expect to blog about this in a few days. 

I also recommend the 159th Carnival of Nuclear Energy at Next Big Future. Great posts, including updates from Japan and China, and an apology from a nuclear opponent for factual errors. This may be the first time in history such a thing has happened. Read about it!

The PSB, the Diesels and Sherlock Holmes

Bulldog asleep

Waiting for the Public Service Board

About a week ago, on May 21, I blogged about the fact that Vermont Yankee needs another back-up diesel, and the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) has been dragging its feet about giving permission to install that diesel.  Entergy has an NRC deadline to install the diesel, and therefore, Entergy sued the PSB in federal court.  The court hearing is scheduled for June 4, which is Tuesday, and coming up fast.

By denying the diesel permit, the PSB is interfering with nuclear safety, an area of federal jurisdiction. My post was A Court Case With A Deadline: The Black Start Diesels. 

That post included the "Breaking News" that the PSB hearing officer for the diesel docket had recommended that PSB grant the permit for the diesel.  The Department of Public Service also supports granting the permit for the diesel.  Here's a link to the Vermont Digger article by Andrew Stein on these recommendations that the PSB approve the diesel.

However, these were only recommendations. The PSB itself did not rule on this matter. The Vermont Digger article quoted Jim Sinclair of Entergy: “While we appreciate and agree with the hearing officer’s recommendation, we remain uncertain as to when the Board will rule,” he said. “Therefore, we will have to determine how this may affect the federal court hearing.”

Will the PSB Rule? Time Passes

The Vermont Digger article appeared on May 20, and the hearing is June 4.  I'll be blunt.  I was waiting for the PSB to make a statement.  I thought PSB might say:

•  "We agree with our hearing officer and here's your diesel permit. " 

or

• "To heck with our hearing officer's recommendations. We don't hand out diesel permits to outfits like you, and we'll see you in court."

But, so far, nothing has happened.  At this point, it looks like the PSB is happy to ignore the hearing officer and the Department of Public Service.  The court date is approaching fast.

I waited. I wanted to write a blog post about this, as soon as there was some news.

Sherlock Holmes and Me

Then I realized that the lack of news--is also news! Non-action is also information.

To quote Sherlock Holmes:

"You consider that to be important?" he [Inspector Gregory] asked.
 "Exceedingly so."
 "Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
 "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
 "The dog did nothing in the night-time."
 "That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.

The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes (1893) : Silver Blaze

In the Holmes case, the fact the "dog did nothing in the night-time" means that a stranger did not commit the crime.  If a stranger had been there, the dog would have barked. Holmes concluded that the crime was an inside job.

To me, the fact that the PSB has done nothing means that they are happy to go to court June 4, even though (IMHO) they are pretty sure to lose on this one. In my opinion, this shows they are heavily influenced by politics.  I think that the more often the PSB is in court, the more political credibility they think they have with the Shumlin administration and the Vermont legislature: We TRIED to shut that plant down! We really did.  They sued us all the time, but we kept trying. 

In my opinion, this non-action on the hearing officer's statement shows that political credibility is what matters to the PSB.  The PSB is supposed to be a non-partisan board, but this incident of the Dog in the Nighttime indicates something else. The Public Service Board is ignoring its own hearing officer and the State's Department of Public Service. It seems happy to be dragged into court.

A political agenda is the best explanation I can come up with.  I welcome readers' comments with other explanations.

Will Davis and Me

And here's a comment to start you off!  Will Davis hosted the most recent nuclear blog Carnival at his Atomic Power Review site.  The Carnival included a link to my post about the diesels, and Will Davis had this to say about it:

Will Davis

Atomic Power Review Note:  Regarding the Yes Vermont Yankee post linked and described above...  Just how many times in this post-Fukushima world would one EVER expect to find any group, anywhere, that could possibly justify campaigning AGAINST adding a back up diesel generator at a nuclear plant site?

I think that says it all.  I hope to receive more comments, but it will be hard to beat Davis's pithy comment.

And Yet Another Lawsuit

In related news, a group of intervenors just sued the PSB in Vermont Supreme Court, claiming the PSB should "enforce their own orders" and close the plant.  Here's the May 25 article by Bob Audette in the Brattleboro Reformer on that suit:  Groups Ask Vermont Court to Affirm PSB Rulings on VY.

This suit bears an uncanny resemblance to a lawsuit the Vermont Supreme Court turned down in March of this year.  Here's the Andrew Stein article in Vermont Digger  on March 28: Vermont Supreme Court Denies New England Coalition's Petition to Close Vermont Yankee.  Or, as I blogged on March 28 in Court Won't Close Plant During PSB Hearings. Since the Vermont Yankee matter is active in both federal court and the PSB, the Vermont Supreme Court is unlikely to get involved.  Courts don't like to step on each other's toes.

Frankly, I don't get this intervenor latest suit.  It looks frivolous to me: it looks like the same contentions as the lawsuit in March.  Why are they doing this? However, I freely admit I am not a lawyer, so there may be a reason. Once again, comments are welcome.

A Court Case with a Deadline: The Black Start Diesels

Breaking News: 

Last night, the hearing officer for the diesel docket at the Public Service Board recommended granting a certificate to allow the diesels to be installed.  This is great news!  However, as Entergy notes in its response, the PSB has not yet ruled on this recommendation, so the situation remains uncertain.  Andrew Stein article at Vermont Digger includes a link to the hearing officer statement.

---------------
A Court Case with a Deadline

On June 4, in federal court in Brattleboro, there will be a hearing on Entergy's suit against Vermont's Public Service Board.  While many court cases drag on forever, this one is likely to be resolved quickly.  Entergy needs an answer from the court by mid-June.

Vermont Yankee needs a diesel generator.  The plant must begin pouring the concrete pad for it in mid-June.

Background

Vermont Yankee and Vernon Dam

In the summer of 2012, the New England System operator (ISO-NE) changed its black-start power plant requirements.  "Black Start" power plants are plants that can start quickly and re-energize the grid during a wide-spread outage. Until last summer, hydro plants were the black-start plants, but hydro plants tend to be small (Vernon Dam is 34 MW).  Gas-fired plants can also start quickly, and gas-fired plants tend to be bigger.  It would require fewer gas-fired plants to re-energize the grid.  Therefore, last summer,  ISO-NE said that small hydro plants such as Vernon Dam would no longer be black-start facilities.  That role would be assigned to larger gas-fired plants.

Vermont Yankee has a direct tie-line to Vernon Dam, and had always counted Vernon Dam as a source of emergency back-up power. When Vernon Dam was re-classified and would no longer be a black-start facility, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission required Vermont Yankee to replace it with another emergency diesel generator.

Supposedly, in Vermont, adding a diesel generator at a nuclear power plant requires a ruling from the Public Service Board.   That's the current Vermont requirement, and Entergy tried to comply.  In early August, Entergy announced it would ask the PSB for permission to add a diesel generator.  The Brattleboro Reformer reported on the request on August 7 (Entergy to ask for new diesel generator at VY), and I blogged about it on August 13 (Black Start, Black Out and Diesels, Some Clarity).

Trying to Shut the Plant Down

As soon as Entergy said it needed a new diesel generator,  intervenors got ready to try to stop them from acquiring one.  As Ray Shadis of NEC said in the Reformer article: "the state even today regulates certain aspects of existing emergency generators -- such as exhaust emissions, petroleum leaks and noise."  He clearly hoped that this diesel generator, a required piece of nuclear plant safety equipment, would be stopped on the basis that diesel generators are..well, they are diesels.

(sarcasm alert) We don't need no stinkin' diesels in Vermont. (end alert)

The Public Service Board Refuses to Act

Vermont Yankee began the process of asking for a new generator last August.  In general, such simple requests to the Public Service Board do not require complicated dockets, but are decided in two or three months. This type of request does not require not the same type of docket as a utility merger might require.  However, the PSB made it pretty clear that they were going to make this decision into a major issue. After months of hesitating, on December 27, they opened the investigation into the diesel with a PSB order that included these words:

As a preliminary matter, the Hearing Officer may request parties to examine the question of whether (i) the Board can and should grant permission for Entergy VY to install the generator when Entergy VY is not in compliance with existing Orders and CPGs and has not demonstrated that it is willing to comply with orders of this Board 

Orders and Implied Orders

The "orders of this Board" clause is not about something small.  It's huge. The question is whether Entergy has a right to keep operating Vermont Yankee after March 2012, when its original certificate of public good expired. In general, by Vermont law, plants can keep operating with an expired certificate, as long as they had applied for a new certificate in a timely fashion (as Entergy did).  But Senate votes and federal court cases (among other things) have muddied the waters on the certificate extension, at least in the opinion of the PSB.

I have not actually found any order from the PSB requiring the plant to shut down.  It seems to be more of an order-implied-by-the-question  that is quoted above. If someone can find such an actual PSB order, I hope they will tell me.  The last two years of PSB orders can be found on this page:  Recent Public Service Board Orders.

The PSB did issue an order recently, however.  On April 24, the Public Service Board entered a Scheduling Order on the docket, re-iterating that it wanted answers to the questions  from the December 27 order.  To put the matter rather mildly, with this statement, the PSB gave Entergy absolutely no assurance of a timely decision.

Entergy Sues

On April 25, Entergy sued the Public Service Board in federal court, claiming the Board has no authority over safety equipment at a nuclear power plant.  It seems clear to me (and apparently, equally clear to Entergy) that the Public Service Board is willfully interfering with the purchase of  nuclear safety equipment. The Board is pre-empting and frustrating the federal role of ensuring safety at nuclear plants.  Andrew Stein at Vermont Digger has a good short article on the lawsuit. I have the Entergy complaint (document that outlined their suit) on federal-filings-page of the Energy Education Project website.

As the Entergy complaint notes, on page 25:   Vermont's refusal to authorize construction of the station blackout generator....is an aspect of the state's long-running campaign to force the VY Station to shut down by any means necessary because of radiological safety concerns....[Vermont] has no genuine, non-pre-empted state interest in preventing construction of the blackout generator.

A June 4 date has been set for the hearing.


Even Nuclear Opponents Wonder about the PSB's Choices

Pat Parentau

Pat Parentau is no friend of Vermont Yankee.  He is a professor at Vermont Law School and an advisor to the Vermont legislature on methods for shutting down the plant.  However, even Parentau appears puzzled by the Board's actions.  A recent article by John Dillon at VPR quoted Parentau:

Vermont Law School Professor Pat Parenteau said the suit puts state regulators in a difficult situation.

“The point is you have a federal law that mandates something to be done and the state seems to be frustrating that,” he said. “And that’s just not the position you want to be in.”...

“Once again, I’m concerned about how the state interacts with the federal court in this matter,” he said. “If they have a real basis to say, ‘no, we’re not going to let you do this.’ Then, okay, what is that basis? But they don’t seem to have that. Why didn’t the state just do something that would avoid this? I don’t know.”


The court date is coming soon.  It will be interesting to see how the state defends their position on the diesel generator.  I personally don't think they can defend it. "They don't seem to have that [a real basis for their statement]" as Parentau said.  So true, indeed.

The state is making arbitrary decisions on nuclear safety, and now they will be in court again.  However, every time a case is heard in court, it is a gamble.  I am not a lawyer. I  think the state does NOT have a good case, but I certainly don't think it is a slam-dunk that one side or the other will win.

I think Entergy is in the right on this, and I certainly hope for a good outcome in court.

-------

Note: You can link directly to the Entergy filing complaint filing pdf here.  It includes a timeline, including Entergy warning the PSB of the date that it would sue them, if the PSB didn't move.  The pdf is a longish document and will take time to download.

I have another document, also, about Vernon Dam.   I asked an  Entergy spokesman if VY had tried to pay Vernon Dam to continue to be available as a black-start facility.  In return, he sent me this filing that Entergy made to the Public Service Board on April 12.  Entergy had asked Vernon Dam (TransCanada) that question and been refused.  TransCanada was willing to be black-start if required by ISO-NE, but did not want to take on the liability of being contractually bound with a nuclear power plant.

All filings to the PSB are public documents, but this one does not appear on the PSB website.  I thank Entergy for sharing it with me.  Mark Potkin's testimony on negotiations with TransCanada--a relatively short pdf.

Black Start, Intervention, plus some links

Vermont Yankee
 Vernon Dam in the foreground

Vernon Dam and the Diesel Generator, Again

ISO-NE recently reclassified Vernon Dam.  The dam is no longer a Black Start facility, that is, it is not one of power plants charged with re-energizing the grid after an extensive power outage.  Because of this reclassification, Vermont Yankee may (or may not) have to obtain a new diesel generator, and may (or may not) need a Certificate of Public Good (CPG) for the generator.   You can read my post about the Vernon Dam reclassification at: Black Start, BlackOut, and Diesels: Some Clarity

In all this uncertainty, two things are certain:

• Vermont Yankee applied for a Certificate of Public Good for the diesels
• One of the old-line intervenors, New England Coalition against Nuclear Pollution, took this as an opportunity to intervene, and was granted intervenor's status.

A recent article by Bob Audette in the Brattleboro Reformer describes this latest intervention Board Grants NEC's Request to Intervene in VY Diesel Case.  The article quotes the Public Service Board hearing officer, Lars Bang-Jensen, as follows:

Bang-Jensen noted that the PSB hasn't even concluded whether it "can or should" grant a CPG for the diesel generator "on any schedule." The diesel generator application is being processed on the assumption that it will not become effective unless the extended operation CPG is approved, he wrote.

And so, in Vermont, with the help of intervenors, a simple request for safety equipment becomes a complex issue.

----------

Some links worth following:

Carnival: The 148th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers is up at Hiroshima Syndrome. Leslie Corrice has done a great job on this post.  I don't think there is anywhere else on the web where you can find so comprehensive a collection of pro-nuclear retrospectives on Fukushima.  (The Carnival covers other topics, including Vermont Yankee, but the Fukushima coverage is spectacular.)


Podcast: Rod Adams has been hosting Atomic Show podcasts for years.  More than seven years, as a matter of fact, and this week he hosted a spectacular podcast, Atomic Show #200, with atomic communicators and experts on three continents (Australia, Europe and North America).  Congratulations to Rod for his unceasing and effective efforts in favor of nuclear energy.  Enjoy the podcast!

Court House Update in February

I went to a Superbowl party, and everyone asked me: "What's going on with Vermont Yankee?"

It's very confusing.  As a matter of fact, the whole thing is as confusing as a complex play in a football game.  I wish I had instant-replay and colorful arrows to track the different players.  Anyhow...

There are four court cases, at least two Public Service Board cases, and maybe more.  Here goes.

The Four Court Cases

The first case is the federal appeals case held in New York City last month: 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.  The state was trying to convince the court that it had economic reasons to shut down Vermont Yankee. The hearing was 30 minutes long and I think that the state's case is fairly weak.  In any event, the judges will rule in a few weeks or a few months or whenever.  You can read about it and listen to the hearing on my blog post:  State Claims Economic Argument for Closing Plant.

The second case is the intervenor case claiming that Vermont Yankee is operating illegally: this case was brought in Vermont Supreme Court. This is the "let's you and him fight" case, where the Public Service Board wrote a strange ambiguous letter that opened the door for such lawsuits.  You can read about it at my earlier Hot Potato blog posts. Or you can watch a succinct 90 second video from WPTZ at my post: The Short Version: Another View of the Vermont Supreme Court Hearing.The hearing is over, and we wait for a ruling from Vermont Supreme Court.

The third case is a new case, brought by Entergy, about the Public Service Board closing a docket. This case is also in Vermont Supreme Court. The Public Service Board had a docket, docket 7440, on the Vermont Yankee Certificate of Public Good, but they decided that docket was compromised by the various lawsuits. So the PSB opened a new docket, docket 7862, subject of my blog post: Docket 7862, Where Are You?  (Docket 7862 is now on the Public Service Board website).

In January, the Public Service Board closed docket 7440.  However, the "you and him fight" letter (see the second case) was on that docket, and closing the docket might have consequences.  I am not a lawyer, and I am puzzled.  However, Entergy reviewed the matter,  and they brought suit in Vermont Supreme Court against the Public Service Board for closing the docket.  An article by Susan Smallheer at the Rutland Herald gives the background of the case. The article ends with the confusing (to me) statement that the PSB thinks that by triggering an appeal by Entergy, the court cases would ultimately be simplified.

I also recommend you to read the Entergy brief, which I have posted at the Energy Education Project website.  It has appendices that give all the relevant statements, dockets, etc.  The Entergy brief is like a history of the case.  When you figure out this whole thing, write a comment or send me an email.  Okay?  Thanks.  I appreciate your help.

The fourth case is about money, specifically the sudden $12 million dollars a year tax that Vermont laid on "plants above 200 MW that started operations after 1965." Entergy claimed this was an unconstitutional levy on a single business.  (I agree!) A federal court recently said they lacked jurisdiction on this and dismissed the case.  I thought I would list it here, because it is an important case, in my opinion. It may be case-closed, or it may be heard in another court.  I don't know, but I think it is important.

The Two Public Service Board Cases

One of the cases is  Docket 7862, the new docket about the Certificate for Public Good. This seems to be going along according to schedule.  Public hearings are over, but public input continues.  You can submit your input through this form.  I hope you will write something about why you think Vermont Yankee should have a certificate of Public Good.

The other docket is about the new diesel generator, as mentioned in my post Black Start, BlackOut and Diesels. Due to a grid operator change in the classification of Vernon Dam, Vermont Yankee needs a new diesel generator, and needs a Certificate of Public Good for that diesel.  There was one hearing on this docket 7964, and it was not reported in the press.

Word of mouth says the hearing was very preliminary and inconclusive.  I bet it was!

• If the PSB grants permission for the diesel, are they also signalling that they plan to grant a Certificate of Public Good for Vermont Yankee?  
• If they don't grant permission, are they interfering with nuclear safety requirements?  

I personally think "inconclusive" will reign on this docket until other issues are resolved.

Football is over

Football is over until next year, but the court cases linger on....Sometimes I wish I wasn't the go-to person for these questions all the time.  It makes it hard to concentrate on the game. Can someone please pass the potato chips?

Three Vermont Yankee Hearings: The Week of Living Lawyerly

The week of January 14, there are three different hearings about Vermont Yankee in three separate courts and on three separate subjects.  It is the Week of Living Lawyerly.

The hearings are in the Federal Appeals Court, the Vermont Supreme Court, and  the Public Service Board. (The Public Service Board hearing concerns the need for a new diesel generator.)

First Hearing: Federal Court

What: Federal Court of Appeals Hearing on State and Entergy Appeals

Where: 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (in New York City)

When: January 14, Monday

Why: Judge Murtha ruled in favor of Entergy in the main federal case, and the state appealed the ruling. The state mainly challenged the part about pre-empting nuclear safety issues.  Entergy also placed two appeals before the circuit court.  The first appeal was about spent fuel rods, and the second appeal was about the NEC suit in Vermont Supreme Court.  This second appeal is discussed below, in the Supreme Court section. 

What is at stake: In the main issue, whether the Circuit Court will (or will not) uphold the Murtha ruling.  

What is at stake, part two: Whichever way the Circuit Court rules, both sides say they will appeal the Circuit Court ruling to the United States Supreme Court.  

Comments by the Blogger:

The Circuit Court calendar shows that both side have a full fifteen minutes each to present their cases.  This length of time seems to be standard for arguments before this court.  I am not a lawyer, but to me, this means that the written material in the docket is the important material.

In terms of the Entergy appeals,  Murtha granted the first appeal, and has just recently turned down the second appeal (about NEC and the Vermont Supreme Court).  I blogged about the turn-down of the appeal against the NEC case in  Hot Potato Continued.

I have some, but not all, of the docket material for the federal case (and the Public Service Board case) posted at Dockets for Public Service Board and Courts on the Vermont Energy Education Project website.

The State asked for "expedited oral arguments" in this case, with the arguments to be presented "as soon as November."  Entergy asked for more time.  The court granted the State of Vermont request for expedited oral arguments, but the arguments are being heard in January.  (Don't ask me...I have no idea what this implies.  I just thought I would mention it.)
---------------------------------------

Vermont Supreme Court

Second Hearing:  Vermont Supreme Court

What:  Hearing on NEC Request to Vermont Supreme Court

Where: Vermont Supreme Court in Montpelier Vermont

When: January 16, Wednesday

What is at stake: A long-time plant opponent, New England Coalition against Nuclear Pollution (NEC) has asked the Vermont Supreme Court to step in and order Vermont Yankee closed. They want the Vermont Supreme Court to issue this order in accordance with a clause in the sale agreement from 2002.  The Public Service Board  and the Department of Public Service have asked the Vermont Supreme Court to deny this request.

What is at stake, part two:  If the Supreme Court were to issue an order to close down Vermont Yankee, everyone expects Vermont Yankee to appeal to federal court.

Comments by the Blogger:

I blogged about this subject extensively in Hot Potato, and Hot Potato Continued. I think that this case is a hot potato that the Public Service Board wants to throw to someone else.

UPDATE: I have put the November 29 Public Service Board statement and the Entergy request for dismissal on a new Vermont Supreme Court filings page at the Energy Education Project site.

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

Emergency backup diesel generator
At a sewage treatment plant

Third Hearing: Public Service Board 

What: Hearing on Certificate of Public Good for Station Blackout Diesel Generator Docket #7964

Where: Public Service Board Hearing Room, Bank Building, Montpelier

When: January 17, Thursday

What is at stake: Will Vermont Yankee be allowed to install a new back-up diesel generator?   Vernon Dam will no longer be considered a Black Start facility by ISO-NE. (I blogged about this in Black Start, Black Out and Diesels, Some Clarity) Since the dam will not be maintained as a Black Start facility, the NRC will no longer consider it to be qualified as a Station Blackout back-up facility.  (The dam is still there, of course, and Vermont Yankee still has a direct line to the dam.)  So Vermont Yankee needs a new station black-out back-up facility.  In most cases, this would be a stationary diesel generator.

What is at stake, part two:  In most cases, getting a new back-up diesel for a power plant would be a slam dunk.  However, the Public Service Board is concerned that if it grants a permit for this piece of safety equipment,  Vermont Yankee would continue to operate.

Wait! Whoops!  That was snarky of me.

Of course, I meant to say that the Public Service Board is concerned because

Normally, the Board would not consider a petition from a company that is not in compliance with existing Board orders, unless that company also demonstrated an intent to come  into compliance. Entergy VY has not indicated such an intent here.

That's a quote from the order, and you can read the entire Public Service Board order setting up the diesel-docket here.

It is important to note that "non-compliance with Board orders" basically means...the plant is still operating, after March 21, 2012, while hearings are on-going.  The Board has several dockets about the Certificate of Public Good, and the Board claims that, according to one of the dockets, the plant is not in compliance because a new Certificate of Public Good has not been yet been granted by the Public Service Board.

Comments by the Blogger

No comment.

Howard Shaffer Testimony to VSNAP: Perspective on Vermont Yankee Errors

Errors at Vermont Yankee Reported to the NRC

Recently, Vermont Yankee announced that it had reported two personnel errors to the NRC. The first error occurred during the refueling outage in October. A worker flipped a circuit breaker on the shut-down cooling system, causing the water temperature to rise briefly and an alarm to sound. The plant was off-line at the time. The second error, in December, was taking both of the plants diesel generators out of service at the same time. This error (the generators were not in use) lasted for about 2 minutes before the mistake was noticed and corrected. As the NRC spokesman noted: Vermont Yankee has other backup systems as well (as the generators), including batteries and a tie to a nearby hydroelectric plant.

Naturally, the opponents have commented. In the Rutland Herald, Ray Shadis was quoted: “They were Homer Simpson moments...The two screw-ups are part of a continuum of ongoing, goofy, inexplicable stuff”. Shadis further noted that he expected the next three months to be the most dangerous in the plant's forty years of operation. In the same article, Arnie Gundersen said that the Public Oversight Panel (he was a member) identified similar issues three years ago.

Yesterday, the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel (VSNAP) met in Vernon, Vermont. The mission of this panel has never been clear to me. According the VSNAP web page, it "considers issues" and writes an annual report to the governor and the legislature. At VSNAP meetings, most of the meeting time is spent on public comments. Vermont Yankee opponents generally show up in force. One of the public comments about the plant was from George Harvey, as reported in the Brattleboro Reformer. "These people have a history of lying....They’re clearly operating out of self-interest. They’re not interested in our making informed decisions, they’re only interested in making money."

Neither Howard Shaffer nor I could attend the VSNAP meeting, due to other obligations. However, Howard sent VSNAP the testimony below, which I am very happy to share.

-----------

Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel

From: Howard Shaffer PE (nuclear) Vermont, NH, MA, IL
Startup Engineer and Support Engineer for Vermont Yankee


The two personnel errors at VY open the discussion to consideration of the initial design of the whole nuclear power program, and all our technologies.

In all my Navy Nuclear power and submarine training it was emphasized that the greatest care is required. You must communicate and double check before taking action. Yet it is acknowledged, and proven by experience, that people make mistakes. Therefore, designs must include backups and consideration of "what ifs."

Nuclear Power Plant Design

In nuclear reactor plant design, of all types, it seems to have been considered that there will be failures of hardware, and people. People include Operators, Managers, and Regulators. In addition, it was believed that in spite of all design, training, and precautions, some day, somewhere, a reactor core would be damaged and melt. The radioactive products were assumed to get out of the vessel and piping. Therefore, a backup was needed. It is the Containment. I call it the "garbage can over the tea kettle." It worked at Three Mile Island. At Fukushima the containments worked for a while, until the lack of cooling for the fuel caused melting and releases. It has been forgotten by the media that the Japanese government ordered an evacuation on the first day of the event, long before releases began.

We, the world nuclear power community, have organizations to communicate lessons learned, in addition to the regulatory agencies. These organizations are the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations in the US, and the World Association of Nuclear Operators. Airplane regulators communicate world wide too.

Human Interaction

Comparing nuclear power to perfection is a political ploy. What in human endeavor is perfect? Try comparing airplanes and cars to perfection. The certainty of error is no excuse. Every accident is investigated and lessons learned incorporated. This is true of the flooding after hurricane Irene, the fire in downtown Brattleboro, house fires, plane and train crashes, car accidents, and nuclear power plant accidents and errors. If you are against something politically, compare it to perfection, and demand zero errors.

In my Navy nuclear power training, I had to read the book containing reports of all the errors that had happened to date. By then, 1963, the book was thick. As years went by, the book got too thick to manage. Errors were being repeated. The book was replaced with a manageable volume of the "classic errors." Why were errors repeated? Errors are repeated in spit of all efforts, because people are human. There are always new people, people changing jobs, rules changes, design changes, and time and other pressures.

NRC licensees are required to have a formal program to document, report, investigate, learn from, and take corrective action on, Human Errors. It is always appropriate to ask if any events constitute a pattern.

Conclusion

The nuclear power program, and Vermont Yankee, should be compared to the available alternatives. On this basis, using the measures the EPA uses: deaths, injuries, accidents, and environmental degradation, it appears that in the 1950's Congress made a very wise decision in choosing nuclear power as a replacement for coal.


Footnote

In a recent press release on the Cross Border Air Pollution Regulations, the EPA stated that:

Pollution from Coal Burning is responsible EVERY YEAR for

34, 000 early deaths due to asthma
$280 billion in health costs
15,000 non fatal heart attacks
19,000 acute bronchitis cases
400,000 cases of aggravated asthma
1.8 million sick days

The Debate Goes On

This morning, Howard Shaffer wrote an excellent post at the ANS Nuclear Cafe blog: Vermont's nuclear debate, continued. In Howard's blog post, he mentioned the real-time debate/discussion that we had on the Walking Through Life local access television show about a week ago. This show, hosted by Linda Carbino, often deals with issues of healing and recovery. She is a gracious moderator, and frequently interviews local politicians.

On Carbino's program, Howard Shaffer and I debated Senator Dick McCormack and Mr. James Moore. Moore is Clean Energy Program Director for VPIRG. McCormack has been on the VPIRG board. They are both foes of Vermont Yankee.

I decided to post the video here. It is a full hour long, so I doubt many people will watch the whole thing. If you want to skip ahead to the 25 minute mark, you can see Senator McCormack say something like: "the idea that people are entitled to all the electricity they want, when they want it, is maybe an outdated concept." A little later in the show, I point out that many places in India have this situation: people cannot have all the power they want whenever they want it. McCormack may like the idea of poor people doing without electricity, and rich people having diesels in the backyard. I don't like it.

Well, here it is. Our debate in all its glory.



By the way, local commentators seem surprised that some people think Vermont Yankee might continue to operate. This morning's article by Terri Hallenbeck of the Burlington Free Press is titled Some Hold Out Hope Yankee Can Stay Open. The article has already had 88 comments.

Vermont Yankee, Reliability and Connecticut: De-Mystified

ISO-NE Insists on Vermont Yankee

Yesterday's post described how ISO-NE (the New England grid operator) required Vermont Yankee to stay in the 2013 forward electricity auction. Yankee had asked to drop out because it has neither a license renewal nor a certificate of public good past 2012. ISO-NE, however, said that Yankee had to stay in the auction because

with or without Vermont Yankee, the system in Vermont has reliability issues that must be addressed; without Vermont Yankee in service, those issues are more severe and could affect neighboring areas.

Since ISO-NE cannot actually force Vermont Yankee to operate, I found this puzzling. I decided to try to understand this incident in a broader context. Or at least, understand it at all.

The Measurement of Reliability

As I did when I was confused about the Hydro-Quebec contracts, I called David Lamont at Vermont Department of Public Service. As before, Lamont was thoughtful, clear and complete, and gave me much more information than I can put in a blog post. Here, greatly paraphrased, are my questions and his answers.

Q. I thought the ISO just dispatches electricity. How can they keep a plant in the energy auction if the plant says it doesn't want to participate, or can't participate?

A. ISO does that if the grid would have reliability issues without the plant.

Q. What do you mean by reliability issues? I mean, I'm not trying to quote the opponents or anything, but the plant does go on refueling outages and electricity continues to flow.

A. ISO judges reliability by the N minus one minus one method. Basically, when the system is running at full capacity, that is the baseline: N or Normal. It should be able to withstand a problem with a large transmission line (minus one) and still be capable of running properly. If a second major element (usually a transmission line) goes down, everything should still work as expected. That is, we plan for N minus one, and minus one again. That's the level of reliability we build into the system. That's how it's designed.

For the southern Vermont, southern New Hampshire, northern Massachusetts area, we meet that criteria now. But not with very much to spare.

Q. And without the plant?

A. ISO is concerned that the N minus one minus one criteria would not be met if the plant were permanently removed from the system.

Opinion: I didn't ask Lamont this, but I think that if the plant were to have an unexpected outage in the middle of the summer, that would be a minus one condition right there, but they would still meet the second minus one condition. But if the plant weren't there, the plant-outage condition would be baseline, and the grid couldn't take two minus-ones on top of that.

Q. But if the plant is not allowed to operate by the Senate, I don't see it helps anything to have the ISO telling it that it must "stay in the auction." Looks to me like the grid is just going to get a little riskier there, and there's not much the ISO can do about it.

A. No. If it were certain the plant was not going to be available, ISO would have to do something to keep the grid reliable. They would almost certainly have to pull in temporary resources.

Q. ISO would pull in temporary resources? What do you mean?

A. You know, things like gas turbines and diesels and other generating systems that can be moved in quickly. They would probably send out an RFP (request for proposals) for emergency generation. That's what they did in Connecticut.

Q. Connecticut?

A. In 2003, ISO-NE determined that Southern Connecticut had a lot of load growth, but not enough transmission lines. Reliability was compromised. ISO sent out an RFP called Request for Proposals For Southwest Connecticut Emergency Capability. ISO is required to keep the system reliable.

NOTE: I have attempted to summarize what Mr. Lamont said. I do not have a recording of our phone call. Any mistakes that are found in this summary are completely my own.

An RFP for Fossil

Instead of continuing to paraphrase Mr. Lamont here, I shall quote some other sources and give some opinions.

Here's what ISO said in the auction press release, about what would happen if Vermont Yankee was out of the picture:

These alternatives could include interim solutions such as emergency generation brought into Vermont temporarily, more expensive generation from outside Vermont, and demand-side resources. Long-term solutions would include transmission line upgrades as well as other possible solutions, such as private development of new generation, increased energy efficiency, and new sources of imported power. All these options will come at an additional cost.

I further quote from the Connecticut RFP about the types of generation they sought (and found) for Connecticut when Southwestern Connecticut no longer met the ISO reliability standards:

Eligible Resources: Five types of resources are qualified to provide the service contemplated in this solicitation. These resources are (a) new quick-start peaking capacity, (b) incremental quick-start capability at existing resources, (c) demand response resources capable of 10- minute or 30-minute dispatch response and eligible to participate in one of the LRP programs that provides for Installed Capacity (“ICAP”) credit, (d) emergency generators capable of 10- minute or 30-minute dispatch response and eligible to participate in one of the LRP programs that provides for ICAP credit, or (e) C&LM projects that result in permanent load reduction sduring on-peak periods defined in Section 6.4. Existing capacity and C&LM projects are prohibited from providing the services contemplated in this RFP.

The Bottom Line

If ISO-NE decides that Vermont Yankee is not going to continue to be available, it would probably have to send out an RFP for Vermont similar to this RFP sent for Connecticut. ISO-NE will keep the grid going, at the cost of emergency generators of various kinds, probably diesel and gas-fired. Wind and solar do not meet the dispatch requirements described above, and coal and nuclear aren't put into place very quickly.

Of course, the dispatch requirements might be different in the Connecticut RFP and in a (theoretical) Vermont RFP in the future. However, we have one model RFP here, and it looks pretty much like "bring me your diesels."

I think that the ISO-NE kept Vermont Yankee in the auction because the alternative was issuing an emergency generation RFP. They don't want to do that until they are absolutely sure it is needed.

Emergency Generation and Renewables

Plant opponents claim that Vermont Yankee prevents renewables from happening. They claim that Vermont would be filled with solar and cow power if only Vermont Yankee didn't exist.

Actually, the future without VY is probably an RFP for emergency diesel and gas fired generation. Next time the plant opponents start to paint rosy pictures of solar panels and wind turbines, ask them about Southern Connecticut. Ask them about diesels.

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

Important Update

After reading this post, Mr. Lamont sent me an email which explained some other issues. I am very grateful for his review and clarification!

1) An RFP for emergency generation is one of the options that ISO has used in the past to ensure grid reliability. We cannot predict that an RFP would be the option chosen if Vermont Yankee is not available. For example, ISO would also look at transmission line upgrades, load interruption, or other fixes. These may or may not be possible.

2) Reliability improvements will cost money. Ratepayers have to pay for diesel generators, transmission upgrades, etc. Saying that "ISO will issue a request for proposal" may be misleading: ISO does not pay for this sort of improvement, but the cost is shared among ratepayers. Depending on the type, location or cause of the upgrade, it is also possible that a subset of ratepayers (Vermont) can be assessed these charges, or they can be shared by all.

3) Like most power plants, VY plans its outages for the shoulder seasons (spring and fall) when the load is lowest. However, grid reliability is assessed for more extreme weather conditions, usually defined as load equivalent to the load on the 90th percentile hottest day on record. The fact that the grid continues to operate when VY is out of service does not mean that the plant is not needed for reliability. It means that the plant was not out of service during an extreme weather event when several other pieces of load support equipment were unavailable as well.

Transmission Line and Diesel Generator from Wikimedia.