Connecticut People: Now is the Time to Support Millstone

Millstone Power Station
photo from NEI  Nuclear Notes

Support This Bill. Right now.

Right now.  Today, or maybe tomorrow

If you live in Connecticut: Write your legislator!

Over the next two weeks, the Connecticut legislature will consider SB 106.  This bill will provide financial relief for Millstone Power Station, which produces enough power for two million homes.  The same bill will also encourage Connecticut's fuel cell industry.

Dominion has a good website about supporting Millstone.  Specifically, you can click the Take Action link, and be taken directly to a site where you can write to your legislator.  If you live in Connecticut, use the link, right now.

If you live in New England but not in Connecticut, read NEI's post With Nuclear Plants Closing, Fears Grow for Stability of the New England's Electric Grid. Be prepared to defend your local nuclear plant.

More about the Connecticut bill

Well, it's complicated.  While other bills (such as New York State's Zero Emissions Credits) mandate clean energy payments for zero-emission power plants, Connecticut SB 106 just allows Millstone to bid into certain types of auctions under the same circumstances as other zero-emission plants.

Under this bill, Millstone will be allowed to present proposals to supply energy, and those proposals will be reviewed by the Office of the Consumer Counsel, the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection, and the Attorney General. (Among others...later these proposals must also reviewed be by the state Public Utilities Regulating Authority.) There are no guarantees for Millstone written into this bill.

Frankly, I think you have to be some kind of Connecticut-power specialist to figure out this bill in its entirety.  Here is a link to the SB 106, as it exists now: An Act Concerning the Diversity of Baseload Energy Supplies in the State and Achieving Connecticut's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mandated Levels.

I have tried to read it, but I came to only one conclusion.  Everything is optional.  This bill does not mandate that Millstone (or any low-emissions source) will be paid any particular amount for their power.  It has many statements such as:

(The Office of Consumer Counsel and the Attorney General)... Shall evaluate project proposals received in response to any solicitation issued pursuant to subsection (a) of this section based on whether such proposal is in the best interest of ratepayers and whether the benefits of such proposal outweigh the costs to ratepayers, based on the following: (A) The delivered prices of such sources compared to the forecasted price of energy, as determined by the commissioner or his or her designee....

This bill levels the playing field. It allows Millstone to bid, along with other low-emissions suppliers.

Naturally, allowing Millstone to bid has infuriated many companies.  This is why you should write your legislator, right now, if you live in Connecticut.

Who are the Opponents?

There is plenty of opposition. Basically, the fossil industry is opposing this bill.

In February, Luther Turmelle wrote about this proposed legislation in  the New Haven Register:  2 Connecticut energy bills aim to help Millstone owner, spur fuel cell use.   His article described the opposition, which includes Calpine, Dynegy, NRG Energy, and the Electric Power Supply Association.  In other words, the opposition includes  the fossil power plants in Connecticut.  These companies and associations represent the plants that do not meet the low-emissions criteria set by Connecticut for energy proposals to be submitted under this bill.

The Time is Now

The problem is that it is spring, and state legislatures either pass bills before adjourning, or...the bills don't pass.  For the sake of the environment, we want this bill to pass.

Time is short. Write your legislator!

Video Day: Climate Change Presentation and more

On February 14, I attended  a Vermont Public Service Board hearing about Vermont Yankee. Meanwhile, Rob Roper, president of the Ethan Allen Institute, attended a Vermont legislative briefing about climate change. We were both in Montpelier, both at energy-planning events. (I am director of the Energy Education Project, which is part of the Ethan Allen Institute.)

• At Roper's event, the presentations made it clear that the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan will not help climate change, or at least, not very much.  (Also, recently, Guy Page wrote about the difficulties of implementing the Plan. Transitioning to Renewable Power: What It Might Look Like. )
• At my event, the same Plan was used it to "prove" that Vermont Yankee is not necessary for the future of Vermont.

There were several other differences between our two events.

1. The Joint Committee presentation was supported by Vermont tax-payers.
2. Entergy pays the costs for PSB hearings about the Vermont Yankee Certificate of Public Good.  
3. Vermont plans to do everything possible, with Efficiency and Renewable Energy, to help climate change.  It admits this is basically impossible (see video).  (Joint Committee meeting)
4. Vermont Yankee's low-carbon energy production could help mitigate climate change, but Vermont wants to shut down the plant. (PSB meeting).
5. Roper shot a great 3-minute video at the Joint Committee meeting he attended. I encourage you to watch it.
6.  I didn't shoot a video at the Public Service Board hearing.  However, I hope to blog about it in a few days.
7. The PSB meeting had no PowerPoints but lots of lawyers. 

Act 160 and Local Liars: A Review of the State's Role in the Entergy Lawsuit

Act 160 is the Vermont law passed in 2006 that gives the legislature the power to refuse a Certificate of Public Good to Entergy, therefore preventing the plant from operating past March 2012. This law was a substantial amendment to the agreement (Memorandum of Understanding) that Entergy had signed in 2002 when it bought Vermont Yankee. That Act 160 substantially changed the contract is one basis for the Entergy lawsuit.

Immediately after the suit was filed, Peter Shumlin claimed that Entergy had supported Act 160. He was surprised that Entergy went back on what they said at the time and sued about something they supported. You can see him saying this in the following clip from True North Reports. The part about Act 160 starts at about the 3.40 minute mark.

In a blog post in late April, I said that Entergy had not supported Act 160. In that post, I referred to my search for evidence that Entergy had supported Act 160. I found only evidence that Entergy had fought it, albeit without a lot of flair and energy. I found a few quotes from Brian Cosgrove of Entergy opposing Act 160. In that blog post, I asked people to give me more evidence about Entergy and Act 160 if they could find it.

On May 8, the Times Argus published a front page article, written by Peter Hirshfeld, titled "Who Said What? And Does It Matter?" The article is unfortunately behind a paywall (I can't link to it) but Hirshfeld found Brian Cosgrove of Entergy making the same negative comments about the bill that I reported in my blog post. Hirshfeld found more evidence, though. In four hearings about the bill, he found that Entergy lobbyists said very clearly that Entergy did not support the bill. On March 2, 2006, lobbyist Gerry Morris said: "This is my third time testifying on this issue and...we still oppose the bill."

Ignorant? Falsehoods?

Since Shumlin said Entergy didn't oppose Act 160, he is either ignorant, or he is lying. ( I will let you choose whether he knows what happens in the Statehouse, or he doesn't.) As John McClaughry notes in a post: Shumlin's statement about Entergy supporting Act 160 is simply not true.

I have begun to think that when Shumlin accuses somebody else of lying, that's a psychological signal that he himself is about to tell a whopper. (Hey, we bloggers can be parlor shrinks if we want to be!)

And the Legislature Lies, Too

The legislature breaks its own laws, while accusing Entergy of not respecting the law. If you remember, the Senate voted to not-allow the PSB to issue a Certificate of Public Good to Vermont Yankee. This vote took place in February, 2010. An election was held this fall, the legislature reconvened, and they never took up Vermont Yankee as an issue in the 2011 session. They acted as if that vote in February 2010 was the official and correct response to their own law, Act 160.

It wasn't official and it wasn't correct. As John McClaughry (head of the Ethan Allen Institute) points out, the legislature broke its own law. McClaughry, a former Vermont Senator, wrote a letter to the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tem of the Senate, and sent a copy to True North Reports, which published it as The State, not Vermont Yankee, Violating the Law. Act 160 says:

“the general assembly shall consider concurrently the issue of storage of spent nuclear fuel… and the operation of Vermont Yankee nuclear power station after March 21, 2012 ,… and shall grant the approval or deny approval of such activities concurrently”.

As John continues: "A plain reading of this statute requires that the general assembly – House and Senate, in the same biennial session – must either grant or deny approval for spent fuel storage and continued operation of VYNPS."

They didn't vote. It's a new session, newly elected legislators, and they didn't vote. Only the Senate voted, last session. The "general assembly" did not vote. Act 160 does not allow the legislature to do a pocket veto of the plant. The legislature broke their own law.

Ah well. The legislators' pants are on fire, but luckily, I live about fifty miles from Montpelier so the flames won't affect me. However, their foolishness might help Entergy win its lawsuit against Vermont, and that would be a Good Thing.

(Full disclosure. John McClaughry is head of the Ethan Allen Institute, and my Energy Education Project is a project within that Institute. McClaughry and I are in agreement on the role of Vermont Yankee for the future of Vermont's energy. (He would never have let me start the Energy Education Project as part of the Ethan Allen Institute if we hadn't agreed on this.) However, since some people in Vermont see the Ethan Allen Institute as part of a vast conspiracy, I might as well point out my connection explicitly. True North Radio also gets some funding through the Institute.)

How We Can Win in Montpelier

In theory, our Vermont legislators shouldn't give a darn about most of the walkers, because they don't vote in Vermont. In fact, with all five Vermont Democrat gubernatorial contenders declaring against Yankee, the legislators will be paying attention. We must be sure that our voices are also heard.

The Vermont State House, Montpelier, Wednesday January 13, 2010, noon to four p.m.

What can we do? Well, some of us can go to the legislature that day, hopefully with signs in support of Vermont Yankee. Among other things, it will be a great way to meet me, your faithful blogger. I will be the extremely beautiful older woman with a sign: Yes Vermont Yankee. Okay, easy to recognize.

Here's a map for parking in Montpelier.

(Look, if the anti-s can stage a fake debate, I can tell you I am beautiful. At least the sign will be recognizable.)

If you can't come then write your legislator. If you haven't got a legislator because you don't live in Vermont, write anyway. Most of the walkers come from out of state, after all.

To write your legislator (or somebody's legislator) go this website for the legislative listings. The directories contain email addresses. The committee lists and the district list contain names, which must be cross-referenced to the directories. If you don't have a representative and want to write someone, email one of the members of the committees on Natural Resources and Energy.

Let's have a presence as this fight begins.