Pilgrim will close by 2019 UPDATE

Pilgrim

Pilgrim to close

Entergy announced today that Pilgrim will close by 2019.  Here are two links:

The Entergy announcement includes many subsidiary links

The Boston Globe has a good article on this breaking news.

Entergy is going to have a press conference today at noon Eastern Time.  There will be more information at that time.

Some Thoughts on Pilgrim and on the Grid

There is some question about exactly when Pilgrim will close.  Entergy has "contracted with ISO-NE" to supply power from Pilgrim until 2019 (Boston Globe article).  This means that Pilgrim will refuel again…unless they can cut a deal with another power plant to supply power after 2017.  Pilgrim's latest refueling outage started in April of this year, and it is roughly on a biennial cycle.  So Pilgrim is fairly sure to keep running until 2017, but may or may not refuel at that time, depending on factors such as whether it can find another power plant to take over its obligations to ISO-NE.

Well, all the stories say "supply power" but it is really about the capacity markets, not the power markets.  Plants bid in years ahead to supply "capacity"…that is, to be available to supply power when needed.  Plants are paid two ways: power payments and capacity payments.

• A plant that supplies power most of the time (base load plants) gets most of its revenue from selling power (MWh sold). This would be the case with Pilgrim.
• A plant that supplies power only part of the time (a peaker plant) gets a much higher proportion of its revenue from capacity payments (MW available when called upon).   This would be the case with most gas plants.

With so many plants retiring (Vermont Yankee, coal plants), available capacity has fallen and (supply and demand) capacity payments have soared. I encourage you to look at a recent chart on Capacity Payments in the Forward Capacity Market, from James Bride's keynote presentation at an ISO-NE meeting in New Hampshire last week.   The chart, on page 12 of the presentation, shows capacity payments going from $3.21 per kWmonth in 2014/2015 to $9.55 per kWmonth in 2019.

Thoughts on the ISO-NE meeting

I was at the Consumer Liaison Group meeting of ISO-NE last Friday, October 9.  I am  (currently) the only Vermont representative to the Coordinating Committee for that group. (Yeah. I need to do a geeky blog post on this.)

For right now, however, please look through the rest of the Bride presentation, especially the section on "missing money."

Intermittent renewables get much of their money from subsidies of various types, not from the grid. Therefore, they can bid into the grid at artificially low costs for their power, even bid in at negative numbers (we will PAY you to take our power!).   This lowers the power price on the grid, and particularly hurts plants that make a lot of power, like base load plants.  As base load plants retire because they can't make enough money to keep operating, the amount of capacity available diminishes, capacity payments go up, and peaker plants get proportionately more money.  Peaker plants always get a higher percentage of their money from capacity payments, but when base load plants retire, they get even more money from capacity payments.

There were several presentations on the role of intermittents on the grid.  Robert Ethier of ISO-NE was on the panel, and the Ethier presentation struck me as surprisingly cheery about predicting more base load plants will retire.  He claimed that: power prices will go down, capacity prices will go up, but the market will take care of everything.  That is my interpretation of his talk. I didn't ask him a question, but I did ask a question of Anne George of ISO-NE after her presentation. ISO-NE supposedly has some concerns with a one-fuel-source grid (natural gas) but they don't seem to be worried overmuch.

The Closing of Pilgrim Nuclear Plant is a Clear Victory for Fossil Fuels. 


Update: Graphic from Bill Mohl (Entergy) press conference this morning, showing where different types of plants get their revenue. Thank you to Entergy for sharing this graphic.

Nuclear gets a small percentage from capacity payments,  and most of their revenue from selling power (energy payments.) 

Gas turbines get a large percentage from capacity payments.

 Renewables get a big percentage from PTC (production tax credits) and RECs (selling Renewable Energy Certificates) which allows renewables to bid into the grid at a very low price, because those two sources of income remain intact, even with little revenue from power production.

I believe A.S. payments are payments as part of the ISO-NE winter reliability program, but I am not sure.  These payments are highest for dual fuel systems in this graph, which is correct for winter reliability payments.  The winter reliability program basically makes payments for keeping fuel on site.  In general, a gas turbine that can  also be fired with oil will keep oil on site, or keep CNG on site, and get the reliability payment.  

Economic fallout from closed Vermont Yankee plant to continue for years: Bruce Parker Guest Post

Economic fallout from closed Vermont Yankee plant to continue for years

By Bruce Parker  August 14, 2015, Vermont Watchdog

Brattleboro, from a walking trail, Wikipedia

BRATTLEBORO, Vt. — As the consequences of closing Vermont Yankee materialize in southeastern Vermont, residents are discovering the dangerous fallout from the plant is turning out to be economic, not nuclear.

“Vermont Yankee had a significant amount of our catering business — probably 10 percent of our business was to Vermont Yankee. And that’s going to go away,” Bill Daley, owner of Vermont Country Deli, told Vermont Watchdog.

Daley, whose deli has served sandwiches, fresh-baked desserts and pastries to the Brattleboro community since it opened more than 25 years ago, said the loss of the region’s sole economic powerhouse is hurting a range of businesses.

“I know a number of businesses that have grumbled about losing Vermont Yankee. My discussions have been, if they go away, you’re losing a piece of the economy, and it’s a large piece of the economy, and definitely our customer base. We’re now having to live with that decision,” Daley said.

Lost business is only part of the trouble facing residents of Windham County after the nuclear plant closed in December. Sales of single-family homes in Brattleboro are down 16.2 percent year over year, and the median sales price for homes has dipped 8.5 percent, from $194,000 in 2014 to $177,500 so far in 2015. The slump comes at a time when housing nationwide is experiencing a robust recovery.

According to Adam Grinold, executive director of the Brattleboro Development Credit Corp., planners knew ahead of time that closing Vermont Yankee would hurt the housing market and cause job losses far beyond those at the plant.

“We in the region started ringing the alarm the minute that happened, saying housing was going to suffer. There would be too much inventory, which would require prices to drop, and the people who were stuck in the Entergy nuclear world were going to have to move and unload their homes. That’s going to lower the prices,” he said.

RELATED: Brattleboro housing market dives as Vermont Yankee exits region

Since 2012, Grinold’s group has been reviewing Vermont Yankee impact studies that detail economic challenges facing residents and businesses in the tri-county area.

The most recent study, published by the UMass Donahue Institute in December, claims the loss of Vermont Yankee’s nearly 600 employees — who averaged $105,000 in annual pay — will result in an additional 669 job losses at nearby restaurants, retail outlets, real estate services and other local businesses.

The report projects the loss of 141 jobs in leisure and hospitality, 116 jobs in education and health services, 111 jobs in professional services, 81 jobs in retail trade, 54 jobs in financial activities and 44 in construction. The estimated 1,220 total job losses represent a combined annual pay of $106,901,672 and an economic output of $493,406,806.

Grinold is not hopeless, however. He said a 2014 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy document, or CEDS, holds the key to transforming the regional economy. He also said the Southeastern Vermont Economic Development Strategies, an affiliate of the Brattleboro Development Credit Corp., has identified scores of job openings that could lure talent to the area.

“Following the CEDS, SeVEDS initiated a workforce development study. We went out to our region’s largest employers, and we know we have over 3,000 jobs needed in the coming years,” Grinold said. “So we know what sector those are in and what education is needed. We know we have the housing available, and we have the jobs available. Now we just have to figure out how to get the people here to do those jobs.”

Asked if his group was in talks with businesses that could fill the void left by Vermont Yankee, Grinold said nothing was in the works at this early stage. But he expressed optimism about programs such as the Windham County Economic Development Program and the Southern Vermont Economic Development Zone, which held its first committee meeting last week.

“Any region would love to bring in new large manufacturing. BDCC helped attract and develop the Commonwealth Dairy facility two years ago, so we know it can be done,” he said. “Certainly now with the Windham County Economic Development Program Funds, Windham County is uniquely positioned to be able to offer incentives.”

As for Daley, he said operating his deli business is becoming a challenge due to Vermont’s economic and political climate.

“The property taxes have all gone up … and to have the minimum wage go up the way it’s going up, it’s going to be more and more difficult. Plus there’s a limited market here with people,” Daley said.

While Daley said he hasn’t raised prices in the past two years, he couldn’t make any promises going forward.

“Any time you increase the cost of doing business you have to make decisions: Do I increase the number of hours I have and therefore I don’t hire somebody? How do I shift the costs around so it’s affordable?” Daley said. “We’ve tried to hold down costs, but if costs continue to go up I can’t say we’re going to keep prices down in the future.”

---

Bruce Parker is a reporter for Watchdog.org. Contact him at bparker@watchdog.org and follow him on Twitter @WatchdogVT

-----

Once again, Bruce Parker of Vermont Watchdog has graciously allowed me to reprint his article.   The original article has excellent graphics and comments, and I recommend it.  His previous guest post at this blog was Vermont Utilities Buy Nuclear Capacity from New Hampshire. 

And meanwhile, my two cents about today's post:

I am always amazed at people who are excited about "getting the people here to do the jobs" when a big employer has left and the town is (in my opinion) sinking into a mini-depression.  I find some of the comments within the article a bit ironical.

Bloggers Analyze Vermont Yankee Closure: Series Starting at American Nuclear Society Blog

Today, the American Nuclear Society blog, ANS Nuclear Cafe, started a series of posts that analyze Vermont Yankee's closing.   Today's post is Reflections on Vermont Yankee-1.   Seven authors have written their opinions, and their work will be published in three posts.

To quote the description of these posts: Seven authors – who have no official connection to Vermont Yankee, or to Entergy, have provided their opinions on the shutdown of the plant, its implications for the region, and possible implications for other nuclear plants in other areas of the country.

The authors are all nuclear advocates and/or pro-nuclear bloggers.

Today's post: It's the Politics, Not the Economics

Today's post has two authors.  I'm the first author.  My part is titled: The Price Is Not the Lesson.  I argue that the statement "it's just an economic decision" works as protective cover for plant owners and it works for plant opponents. However, the real reasons for closure include political opposition and heavy, targetted taxation.

The second author is Les Corrice, blogger at Hiroshima Syndrome.  His website hosts two blogs: Fukushima Accident Updates and Fukushima Commentary.  Corrice is also author of two books about the Fukushima accident.

Corrice's section is titled: The Unspoken Reason for Closure. As he writes: "In my opinion, the economic rationale is a smoke screen for an unspoken, over-riding reason.    V-Y has been under a socio-political attack for decades."

No, Corrice and I did not coordinate or collaborate on our posts. It's more a great-minds-think-alike situation!  I encourage you to read the entire post at ANS Nuclear Cafe and to comment on it.

Other posts, with other ideas, written by other bloggers, will be coming soon.

-------

Yesterday, in the Valley News, I had a guest column on the front page of the "Perspective" section of the Sunday paper.  In a few days, I will reprint the column at this blog.  In the meantime, I hope this link works.  Why Electricity Costs Spiked.  (I don't control the illustrations for my columns, of course.  I am pleased that this column is illustrated with a very nice picture of Vermont Yankee.)

Video of Interviews with Vermont Yankee People

Entergy made a short video of interviews with Vermont Yankee employees. The video was filmed on the last day of plant operations.

Vermont Yankee was a well-maintained plant. It was a plant where people worked together. A sad video. But it is an opportunity to hear the voices of the employees themselves.


Vermont Yankee Employee Thoughts on Closing from Entergy Corp. on Vimeo.

Timeline, Layoffs and an Insult

Fuel Removed and NRC Notified 

On January 12, Vermont Yankee sent a letter to the NRC: it stated that all fuel has been removed from the reactor and placed in the spent fuel pool.  It further stated that the reactor is no longer producing power. The letter was reported by WCAX.

There's a time-line to decommissioning here, and the letter is part of it.  First, Vermont Yankee filed its PSDAR (Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report) with the NRC on December 23, 2014. (They had told the state of Vermont that they would file by the end of the year.  The plant went off-line forever on December 29, 2014.)  There is a 67 day comment period, during which people can comment on this document: the comment period ends on March 23, 2015.  As I understand it, either on March 23 or sometime thereafter when the NRC accepts the PSDAR, Vermont Yankee will be officially in the status of "decommissioning" rather than holding an operation license.  At that point, Entergy will be able to access the decommissioning funds for decommissioning activities.

Layoffs Coming Next Week 

Fuel Pool at Areva

Meanwhile, next week, many people will be laid off at VY. How many people?  I have seen conflicting numbers in the newspapers, and so I called Martin Cohn at Entergy this morning for an update. (For the most recent complete newspaper article, I recommend Susan Smallheer's article in the Times Argus.)

When I talked to Cohn, he explained that some numbers have not changed: There are 550 people working at the plant right now, and after the layoffs, 316 people will be working there. Those numbers have been announced for a long time.  In other words, 234 people will not have jobs at the plant next week.   However, as Cohn said, other numbers are more of a moving target.  Cohn said that as of ten o'clock this morning: 40 people are retiring and  80 people are transferring to other Entergy plants. Of the remaining 114 people, only 8 people remain jobless, as of his knowledge.

Soft Landings Aren't All Soft

Virginia Magnolia
They don't grow in Vermont

I am happy that so many people are having a fairly soft landing. Still, even soft landings can be hard.  Many Vermont Yankee people are leaving the area, including leaving their friends, their kids' schools, their churches, their doctors, their favorite restaurants, their church choirs, or their poker buddies.

My husband's family moved cross-country when he was eleven, because his father lost his job.  My husband still remembers, quite vividly, the sadness and dislocation, even though the new place was (of course) interesting and new.  The new place was also difficult and odd and painful.  His mother was especially hurt by the move: she had a very active engagement with her local church, and a basement with shelves full of home-canned fruits and vegetables. These fruits and vegetables could not make the move, and they represented something.

My husband was also hurt: the three boys that were his cousins and best friends lived fairly close by until they moved.   As a matter of fact, while my husband's father was fighting WWII and my husband was a pre-schooler, my husband lived with these boys and their parents. When George was eleven years old and his father moved, these cousins disappeared from his young life, for years.  Catching up with these cousins later wasn't exactly the same. (Though now, they all are great friends and visit every year or two.)

I have basically been so sad about Vermont Yankee layoffs that I have found it difficult to blog.

So, I will switch gears from sadness to anger.  That might help.  Alas, my anger is not about the plant itself right now.  It's more personal.
----------

New Insults to Bloggers, Including Me

Now, I realize this may seem a rather self-centered section of the post.  Skip it if you want.  There are bigger issues, and I discuss them above.

This section is about an insulting blog post from an anti-nuclear group.  Yes, insulting anti-nuclear posts are a dime a dozen.  So why am I writing about this one?  Here's the story.

 On New Year's Eve I wrote a  blog post, For the Happiness In My Life.  In this post, I looked at the good things in my life as a way of dealing with the sadness of Vermont Yankee closing. My post started out with the statement: "To say I have been miserable about Vermont Yankee going off-line is putting it mildly."

A rather nasty anti-nuclear group put up a post on their blog called Nuclear Industry Goes Hysterically Ballistic About Vermont Yankee Shutdown.  No, I'm not going to link to it...you can probably find it on-line if you care to read it.  In that post, the author quoted a bunch of us pro-nuclear bloggers, including me, as examples of "hysterically ballistic."  For me, he quoted the paragraph  starting: "To say I have been miserable about Vermont Yankee..."

Well, that was a good example of "hysterically ballistic," wasn't it? (Sarcasm alert.) And yes, some of us bloggers answered and some of the answers got published and other bloggers got banned from his blog and it was all a tremendous waste of time and energy.

At any rate, when he quoted the pro-nuclear bloggers, he named the bloggers.  Except for two.  One he didn't name was "NEI blog" which kind of makes sense, though the authors generally sign their posts.  They have a lot of authors.  The other blogger he didn't name was me.  I was "a blogger at Yes Vermont Yankee." He named the male bloggers, to put it bluntly.

Was this guy dumb and couldn't figure out who wrote that post?  Or is he the kind of person who doesn't notice that women have names? I don't know.  At any rate, I have added my picture and name to my blog now.  I probably should have done this ages ago. Now everyone can see the person who writes most of the posts. Therefore, I suppose that some good came out of the situation.

And yes, I deliberately did not use his name in this blog. This was not an oversight on my part.  It was deliberate.

Rally for Vermont Yankee, 2011

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?

The Economic Development Fund Won't Help Vermont Yankee People

Two Million Dollars in Development Funds Won't Help People from Vermont Yankee

In November, Nuclear Energy Institute asked me to write a guest post about the effects of the closing of Vermont Yankee. I wrote:

In Entergy's...."late-2013 agreement with the state...Entergy will send $2 million a year for five years (for a total of $10 million) to the state for economic development of the Windham County region.....Some workers at Vermont Yankee....are fairly cynical about this development funding. They don’t believe it will help laid-off employees. I agree with them. ...."

I was right.  The workers were right. This money will not help Vermont Yankee workers. In retrospect, this outcome was predictable.  And yes, part of the outcome is Governor Shumlin's fault. I hate to point fingers, but sometimes facts are facts.

A Timeline: We Start With the Money
In December of 2013, Entergy and the state of Vermont signed an agreement about the final months of the plant operation. Basically, Entergy agreed to pay millions of dollars to the state (and move fuel to dry casks quickly). In return, the Entergy would get a Certificate of Public Good to operate the plant until the end  of 2014.

In March 2014, the Public Service Board approved the agreement and granted the Certificate. Various money was on the table, but for the purposes of this post, we will only discuss some of it, specifically the economic development money. Entergy's agreement included $2 million a year, for five years, for economic development of Windham County.

In late March or early April 2014, the state received $2 million dollars from Entergy.  By May, the state was developing guidelines for proposals to disburse the funds. Here's a May article in the Brattleboro Reformer about guideline development.

The economic guidelines needed to resolve many controversies. Should for-profit businesses be allowed to compete for this money? Would there be a revolving loan fund for businesses? Finally, in late July, the state had its guidelines and it requested applications.   As Vermont Digger reported,  non profits could apply for grants, and businesses could apply for loans. Loan "repayments will remain in a revolving fund for Windham County in perpetuity."  All applications were due on September 23.

The proposals and the panel
The panel received about $6 million dollars worth of proposals for the $2 million dollars available. The town of Vernon worked hard on its proposal: it was especially hard-hit by the plant's closing.  In this video clip about Vermont Yankee closing, you can hear Patty O'Donnell, chairman of the Vernon Selectboard, speaking hopefully of Vernon's application for a grant to start a business incubator.

The Vermont Economic Progress Council, an eleven-member panel, served as the decision-maker about the economic grants.  This panel has nine members appointed by the governor, and two members appointed by the legislature. Only two panel members come from Windham County, a fact noted by the Brattleboro Reformer in an editorial. The Reformer thought that more local representation might have been a good thing.

The panel recommends
Around Thanksgiving, the panel made its recommendations.  These were recommendations to Governor Peter Shumlin.  Shumlin would make the final decision.

Governor Shumlin

Note: Weirdly, in this state, "Governor Shumlin will make the final decision" doesn't surprise anybody. I have lived in many states, and in general, agency panels make decisions on funding. They put out a request for proposals, then they choose the proposals they want to fund.  Sometimes the governor must approve, but rarely is the situation described as the Governor making the final decision.

Vermont Digger wrote a report on the panel's recommendations.  The panel only planned to award $1.7 million in funding, and none of that was to the town of Vernon. That town's proposal didn't even make the first cut.

Governor Shumlin Decides
Governor Shumlin did not find all $1.7 million dollars worth of projects worthy of
funding.  As a matter of fact, he only plans to fund $800,000 dollars worth of projects.  Vermont Digger described the projects in its article: The State Slows Windham County Economic Development Program.  

The funded projects included $79,000 for the "Strolling of the Heifers" business plan competition.  Now, far be it from me to disrespect the "Strolling of the Heifers," a fine parade in Brattleboro. The Heifers organization is also involved in many locavore, farm-to-table projects.  Still, I don't understand why the Vernon business incubator made no headway with the committee, but the Heifers will be awarded funding for their business competition.  It's almost like saying: we are not interested in what happens to the people in Vernon.  (I am a blogger.  I have opinions.)

Well, that's my opinion of the outcome.  Governor Shumlin's opinion is that Vermont has to revamp the application process to get better proposals next year.

One businessman commented in Vermont Digger, claiming that the process was insulting. He doesn't think the business community is going to try again for next year's funds. A commentator on a Vermont Public Radio article said that the process puts Shumlin in an overly regal  role. 

Opinions certainly vary.

So It Goes
After an entire summer of workshops and excitement about grant applications for the Entergy money, the result can be most honestly described as a fizzle. Most of the money wasn't even awarded. Governor Shumlin was disappointed that the received proposals  were not "transformational" enough. Was he really disappointed, or did he just want to emphasize that the final decision is in his hands alone?  Who knows? Probably a little of both ideas.

Skeptics at Vermont Yankee thought the Entergy economic development money, once it was given to the state, was unlikely to be used to help Vermont Yankee workers.

The bottom line is that the Vermont Yankee skeptics were correct.

Alas.

Vermont Yankee Powers Down While Vermont Protestors Flock Down to New York City to Protest Climate Change

Empire State Building

In New York City

In the Brattleboro Commons, the article about the Climate March in New York is titled The last opportunity to keep the climate cool?  According to that article, 1400 Vermonters are headed to New York  for the march. They are traveling in fifteen buses (some sponsored by Ben and Jerry's) and many cars. The marchers hope to convince our leaders to do-something about the climate.

(Note: Ben and Jerry's is a major opponent of Vermont Yankee, although the company needs prodigious amounts of power to make and distribute their product.  See my post on the Ironies of Ice Cream. )

In Vermont

Meanwhile, back in Vermont, Vermont Yankee is powering down for the last time.  As this article in WWLP writes in a headline: Vermont Yankee provided about 70% of the electricity generated in Vermont.  Replacement power is sure to come from fossil sources, though ISO-NE lists "alternatives, hydro and fossil replacement."  Local businesses are already hurting, as some  Vermont Yankee employees begin to move away.





Hypocrisy Rides Again

Poster from EcoWatch

Most of these marchers are in organizations that were eager to shut down nuclear energy. Let's  think about two leaders of the march:  Harvey Wasserman and Bill McKibben.

You can see the Wasserman  poster at the right. His group has a rallying cry: "Don't Nuke the Climate!" (I have updated the poster with the much-better parody poster, below!)

McKibben and I had quite an exchange at this blog post: Carbon Dioxide and Nuclear Energy.  (Check the comments section.) McKibben founded an organization against global warming, but he has been steadily opposed to Vermont Yankee's operation.

Thank you to Urs Bolt for this image

So, why do I call it hypocrisy? Maybe they really think that nuclear energy "nukes" the climate?  If they do, they simply have refused to look into the facts. Willful ignorance is a form of hypocrisy, in my opinion.

A few facts, please

First: The UN. With a few moments worth of investigation, the anti-nuke "Climate Worriers" could find out that nuclear power creates far less greenhouse gases than almost all other forms of energy.  If you look at the Wikipedia article on life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, you will see that the UN agency IPCC studied life-cycle emissions from many forms of energy.

According to IPCC:

• nuclear averaged 12 gCO2/kWh, 
• rooftop solar was 41 grams.
• combined cycle natural gas was 490 grams.  

Note that the IPCC is the agency that also tracks atmospheric carbon dioxide and warns us about global warming.

And yet, some people can claim the IPCC is truthful  about global warming  but dedicated liars about nuclear energy.  Well, whatever! The movie Pandora's Promise has a really good bit about this.  Comic relief! Watch the movie!

Next: Vermont Law School. But meanwhile, if people think they can't trust the IPCC, maybe they can trust Benjamin Sovacool, a leader at Vermont Law School and a dedicated foe of all nuclear energy? (Really, he's written anti-nuclear books). And Sovacool also did a life-cycle carbon dioxide footprint for various sorts of energy. I have no doubt that he did his level best to make nuclear look bad.

Sovacool's numbers are in the Wikipedia article. Sovacool calculated these life-cycle numbers:

• solar PV at 33 g CO2/kWh
• nuclear at 66 grams ("various reactor types") 
• natural gas combined cycle at 443 grams.  

Well, I guess Sovacool kind of bashed nuclear, huh?  But this doesn't  exactly show "Nuking the Climate," does it? I am sure he tried, though, gotta give him credit for trying...

It Really Rides. Hypocrisy Rides Again

According to the Vermont Agency for Natural Resources, as of a few years ago, 46% of Vermont's greenhouse gas emissions came from transportation, and 4% came from electricity generation. ( See page 22 of this pdf from the Agency.)

So what's with all these people getting into gasoline-fired vehicles and heading on down to New York City?  Aren't they GASSING the climate! Of course they are.

They are riding the climate to death!

And I suspect they feel very virtuous about it, too.

---
End note: Someone asked me  about the carbon dioxide footprint of this march. I don't know, but I welcome comments that would try to calculate it.

Paint It Black

A horrible day

Today was a horrible day at Vermont Yankee.

A year from now, the plant will be closed.  Most people who work at the plant will be able to work there for only one more year.  However, some people will (probably) be involved in doing the decommissioning assessment, and they have two years of work ahead of them.

Today, Entergy announced who will have a year, and who will have two years. The people at the plant referred to this as "the list was out."

 I wasn't at the plant of course, but from what I read (mostly on Facebook) this was the worst day ever at the plant.  Gratitude if you were one of the "lucky ones" was offset by misery at the fact that so many of your friends were "unlucky."

What can I say?  I wanted the plant to keep operating. People work together for years to do something good, and in an afternoon, most of the good feelings were destroyed.

Grief.  A horrible day.

A friend screams

I need to tell a story about a layoff.  I was working at a software company, and there was a massive layoff.  I survived it, and thought I was so very lucky.  I guess I was.  A woman I knew --- she screamed when our boss told her.  I heard her.  Everybody heard her. It was horrible, hearing that scream.

Well. The thing about being laid off is that the person generally gets another job.  But where do they get a job? Obviously, they get a job at a company that is hiring.  A company that is growing.  A company that is doing well.

And that is what happened. She got a job within a few months and rose very quickly at that new company. Meanwhile, lucky me, the not-laid-off-person, well...I stayed at the same company and merely hoped to survive the next layoff.

I also thought...man, if I am the next person laid off, I am definitely looking my friend up!  She's doing so well! She might be able to help me!

Who is lucky and who isn't?  It isn't clear.  In general, one year or two years from now, there will be no comparable jobs in Windham County.  One or two years from now, people will be deciding to stay or to leave.  I personally think that the people who leave will get good jobs...at companies that are hiring.

This is a miserable situation and I don't mean to be a Pollyanna. People are being torn right out of their community of work and friendship.

Still, people will go on and have good lives.  This event is a lot closer to a divorce than a death.

Paint It Black

Grief doesn't know, though. Grief feels like grief even if it is "just a divorce."

To me, this very dark song has always been somewhat comforting.  So I share it.  I mean well by sharing it.  I know it won't be everyone's cuppa.

Vermont Yankee's Closing Will Hurt Vermont

The Plant Will Close

On Aug. 27, Entergy announced that Vermont Yankee would be shuttered in the fall or 2014, when its current fuel load is finished producing power.

Entergy’s decision elicited a variety of reactions. Some regarded this as a great victory and were practically dancing in the streets. I was among those who were upset and depressed by the news. But I suspect that most people were somewhere in the middle. They thought, well, Vermont isn’t using Vermont Yankee power anyway, so it shouldn’t make much of a difference.

It does. Vermont Yankee’s closing will affect everyone in Vermont. It will make our electricity more expensive, more fossil-fuel based and less reliable.

Vermont utilities are using Vermont Yankee power now. They’re not officially buying Vermont Yankee power, but “using” power and “buying” power are different. Power use has to do with physical structure — where power plants, transmission lines and users are located. “Buying” power is about power contracts. A utility can choose to “buy” power from far away, but it will continue to use the power from the local generators. For example, when Green Mountain Power bought power from Seabrook instead of from Vermont Yankee, no power lines needed to be constructed. When a major supplier of regional power is lost, it must be replaced, regardless of who’s buying it.

So when Vermont Yankee closes, people in Vermont will have to get actual power from other sources. Can they get this power? The short answer is yes. Vermont Electric Power Co. (VELCO) manages the state transmission systems. VELCO was concerned that Vermont Yankee might close. Between 2010 and 2013, it invested $30 million in new lines and substations to bring replacement electricity to Vermont.

The Replacement Power

What will the new power sources be? Despite the Vermont Comprehensive Plan, very little will come from renewable sources. Building renewables is a slow, expensive, land-intensive job. Vermont Yankee generates 620 megawatts of power and is well-connected to the grid. In contrast, the Lowell Mountain wind project produces 64 MW and has difficulty getting on the grid. Rep. Tony Klein, a strong advocate of wind energy, said recently that he expects no more wind farms to be built in Vermont for another 10 to 15 years.

When Vermont Yankee goes off-line, Vermont will get its power from outside Vermont: either power supplied by the regional grid, ISO-NE, or hydro-power from Canada. With Yankee closing, much of the power on the grid, especially the spot market power, will be gas-fired and its price is due to go up. Power supplied under contract by HydroQuebec follows that spot price. Before, when gas prices went up, Vermont Yankee could underbid the gas prices, and supply many megawatt-hours at a lower price than gas. But without Vermont Yankee, gas prices will determine the price of almost everything on the grid.

Natural Gas and Some Oil

Industrial Gas Turbine

Our local grid power is already overdependent on natural gas. Right now, 52 percent of the power on the grid is produced from natural gas, and it will be a higher percentage when Vermont Yankee closes. ISO-NE considers gas dependence a “key strategic risk” for New England. The area is vulnerable to supply disruptions and price changes for this commodity.

Let’s start with supply disruptions. We had a natural gas supply crisis during the January 2013 cold snap. Although many in New England heat their homes with natural gas, the limited gas lines serving the region make for an inadequate supply. In cold weather, when domestic demand for gas spikes, those customers receive priority, and the power plants can’t get enough gas. During that cold snap, the grid would attempt to summon the help of a gas-burning power plant, and the plant would answer: “Sorry. Can’t go online. No gas.”

This year, ISO-NE started a “Winter Reliability Program” to address this problem — by using oil. ISO-NE has set aside $75 million to keep (mostly) oil-burning plants at the ready. That’s right, the grid is paying $75 million to have oil-burning plants keep oil onsite. (This is a “capacity” payment; the plants will be paid separately when they actual make power.) ISO-NE is ensuring reliability, but at a high dollar cost and a high cost in fossil-fuel use.

Without Vermont Yankee, more power will come from gas plants, but they will still be supplied by the same set of pipelines. Unless new pipelines are built quickly, an unlikely event, it will take less of a cold snap to activate the “we can’t get gas for our power plant” situation. In that case, more oil will be needed for back-up.

Price also matters, and once again, the problem is a lack of pipelines. Fracking has made a lot of gas available, but New England’s access to it is limited. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which tracks national supply and demand, published a market assessment in October that reported that gas prices are relatively stable in most of the country, except in New England. In other regions, gas prices charged last winter and for futures contracts written on the coming winter are around $4 per MMBTU (1 million BTUs). In New England, natural gas prices last year were $6.60 MMBTU, but the futures price for the winter of 2014 is soaring to $11.75. Electricity prices in this area are also expected to rise, since electricity prices customarily track gas prices.

Canadian Hydro--only a very partial solution

What about getting more power from hydro plants in Canada? This will work … partially. Depending on how much electricity we import, new transmission lines may well be needed. Some of these lines are already being planned. We should also note that Canadian power is unlikely to shield us from price rises on the grid. Under the new HydroQuebec contracts signed around 2012, the price HydroQuebec charges will fluctuate; it will move according to the market price on the grid, which itself follows natural gas prices.

Ice Storm of 1998

In this case, we will be actually moving more electricity from Canada, not just writing contracts. Electricity carried long distances is also liable to disruptions. In 1998, an ice storm devastated HydroQuebec’s power lines, causing widespread, lengthy power outages. This could happen again, but let’s look at a more recent and more mundane supply disruption.

During that same cold snap last January, HydroQuebec exported only about half of the usual amount of electricity to the U.S. Why did it cut back just when the power was most needed?

Quebec law requires HydroQuebec to supply inexpensive electricity to “legacy” customers within the province. The needs of those customers must be met, and at a retail price of around 3 cents per kWh. Therefore, many people in Quebec heat with electricity. In a cold snap, the Quebec heaters go on, and HydroQuebec has less power to send to us. HydroQuebec hates this, but has no choice.

Cold Weather and Reliability

Even with Vermont Yankee running, Vermont and New England were overly dependent on natural gas. Without Vermont Yankee, the problems will get worse,. Our dependence on natural gas and on Canada sets us up for a perfect storm of increased power prices — and it won’t take a monster storm to trigger it. Cold weather itself will do a fine job.

--------

This op-ed originally appeared in the Valley News on November 17, and appeared in the Ethan Allen Institute newsletter in December.

A reference list for this post is Reference list for effects of closing Vermont Yankee.

Legislators visit Vernon and are shocked to find economic pain.

Quotes and Comments

On Monday, October 28, two legislative committees went to the Vernon Elementary School to listen to local companies and residents discuss the next steps after Vermont Yankee closes.  They had an afternoon session in which business groups addressed them and an evening session open to public comments.  The two committees were the Natural Resources and Energy Committee, and the Commerce and Economic Development Committee.

On the Save Vermont Yankee Facebook page, I have seen this visit described as a "dog and pony show"  and that the legislators "couldn't care less."  Other comments were less flattering.

So I thought I would devote this blog post to quotes from the newspaper articles about the meeting, along with some commentary about the quotes.

Where the Money Comes From

In the afternoon meeting,  the various business groups presented their issues and questions. This meeting was reported by Terri Hallenbeck of the Burlington Free Press. Windham County asks state for help as VY prepares to shut down.

A quote from that article:

Meanwhile, the Legislature should be wary of forcing Entergy to pay more taxes and fees without knowing where that money is coming from, Tom Buchanan, chairman of the Windham Regional Commission’s Vermont Yankee Study Committee.

There is a risk if lawmakers levy a new tax on Vermont Yankee to pay for spent fuel, for example, that that money could come from the plant’s decommissioning fund, he said. That would simply slow the decommissioning process, he said.

Blogger comment: Very true.  Later in the article, Mike Twomey of Entergy explains some of the things for which the decommissioning money can be used.

In my opinion, the legislature saw Vermont Yankee as the ultimate cash-cow (Money for the Clean Energy Development Fund. Town of Vernon shares property taxes with the state, etc.).  Perhaps as the plant closes, the legislature will come to their senses and recognize that their golden goose is leaving town.

This issue reminds me of the time when Entergy first filed a federal lawsuit against Vermont.  Shumlin immediately arranged for the legislature to pass a law that Vermont Yankee would pay for the state's costs in defending against that lawsuit!  The law was never enforced (Attorney General of Vermont Acknowledges "Shaky Concept" in Charging Entergy for Vermont's Expenses) but it gives an idea of the legislature's ideas on what they think they can do---just by  passing a law.

The Legislature Has Responsibility

Andrew Stein at Vermont Digger wrote Windham County Seeks $2.2 Million in State Aid to Recover from Vermont Yankee closing.  A quote from that article:

Martin Langeveld, a Vernon resident, told the legislators that they should feel responsible for mitigating the impact of Vermont Yankee’s closure.

“In this situation, the governor and the Legislature did the exact opposite of what you usually do,” he said. “Instead of trying to preserve jobs, instead of trying to attract and support a large employer, they actively sought to close one down. That is unique. That is what makes this one different.

“I suggest you need to consider what the Legislature’s responsibility is now that it has gained that objective it sought for so long,” Langeveld said. “In this case, you have a special responsibility to permit a mitigation effort to go forward and to generously fund that mitigation effort.”

Blogger comment: Langeveld said it well.

Tony Klein Notices Real People

Susan Smallheer at Times Argus wrote State Catches Heat for Vermont Yankee Closing.  The final two paragraphs of that article:

Rep. Tony Klein

Rep. Tony Klein, chairman of the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, and a leading Yankee opponent, told the gathering he had a “greater appreciation of what’s going on down here. That’s a big accomplishment.”

“You’re not just a nondescript face any more,” he said. “We have heard it first-hand and we have a greater appreciation of what needs to happen.”

Blogger comment: Oh puh-leeze. Klein has been a determined foe of Vermont Yankee.  I have heard him say that the presence of Vermont Yankee could destroy the Vermont "brand." (On the other hand, Klein is a great supporter of wind turbines.)

Around the time of the famous vote in the Senate (2010), many people from Vermont Yankee came up to talk to the legislators.  They reported that the legislators avoided them, ran into the committee rooms to hide, wouldn't look the plant employees in the eye, etc.  I did not blog about this because I didn't know which legislators did what.  I try for accuracy on this blog.  Sometime I think I try too hard for too much accuracy.

Well, for Tony Klein, I think it IS a "big accomplishment" that the people of Vernon are not "nondescript face(s)."  People in the nuclear industry should be grateful for whatever progress we make with anti-nuclear committee leaders. Right?

Okay.  Time to end this post. I'm getting snarky...

A State of Extortion: Conditions for a Vermont Yankee Certificate

John McClaughry
at a dinner in his honor

The Prediction: John McClaughry

Shortly after Entergy announced it would close Vermont Yankee in 2014, Governor Peter Shumlin decided that people should work together, not fight with each other.  Specifically, Shumlin said that his administration would “use this opportunity to build better relations with Entergy.”

John McClaughry doubted that statement.  McClaughry is one of the founders of the Ethan Allen Institute, and he predicted that better relations between Entergy and Shumlin were not going to happen.  Better relations weren't in the cards (to use a fortune-teller analogy).   Governor Shumlin would continue to behave the way Governor Shumlin behaves.  

In early September, a few days after Shumlin's announcement, McClaughry wrote an op-ed which was published many places in Vermont:  Governor Shumlin's Unlikely Olive Branch to Entergy. Here's the quote with the prediction:

With this long, outspoken, and unbroken record of opposition to the nuclear plant and its corporate owner, can we expect Peter Shumlin to now seek “better relations” with Entergy? It’s far more likely that he, his regulators and lawyers, and his legislative friends will spend the rest of his time in the Governor’s office extorting every last dime out of Entergy to fund their own pet projects, and when that is pushed as far as it can go, forcing Entergy to spend as much as possible through more of the “cumulative regulation” that Entergy says contributed to its decision to close the plant.

The Pondering: State Weighs Conditions for Entergy

When Entergy announced it was closing the plant, the state "weighed the conditions" they would put

Commissioner Recchia
from DPS site

on Vermont Yankee's continued operation for a final year. 

The Public Service Board was still considering a Certificate of Public Good (CPG) for Vermont Yankee when Entergy announced it was closing the plant.  Entergy quickly filed an amended petition with the Board, asking for a CPG for through the end of 2014, instead of through 2032.  Under Shumlin's administration, the Department of Public Service (DPS) had opposed the 20-year extension.  Would they also oppose a one-year extension? 

When Entergy filed for a one-year extension,  Chris Recchia, commissioner of the department, said the department was considering its options about the one-year extension. Here's a quote from Andrew Stein's article in Vermont Digger. 

“The options are to support it (the one-year certificate) with conditions or oppose it unless there are conditions,” he (Recchia) said.

The Prediction Fulfilled: Also Known As The Shake-Down

First, we have to admit that the state learned some very expensive lessons in various courts.  The DPS considered recommending a time-table for decommissioning, or recommending how the plant should handle spent fuel.  But then they thought better of it. Recchia noted that these areas fall under the purview of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  

“We felt we needed to focus on areas where we have jurisdiction,” Recchia said.  (From Oct 25 article Terri Hallenbeck in the Burlington Free Press.)

If DPS tried to regulate safety, they could lose in court. Gathering money from Entergy seemed a more reasonable tactic.  DPS recommended that the Public Service Board should extract money from the plant in return for a fourteen month CPG.  Specfically, DPS recommend that Entergy must

• Put $60 million dollars in a separate trust fund for decommissioning within 21 days of receiving a certificate of public good from the state (Anne Galloway article in Vermont Digger)
• Put $4.65 million dollars into a fund "for the state to disburse" for dislocated worker assistance (Terri Hallenbeck  article). 

Another justification given for Entergy contributing $4.65 million to the state is that the state will lose its "generation tax" revenues when Vermont Yankee stops generating power.  As Galloway wrote in Vermont Digger:

"Once the plant closes, that source of state revenue (the generation tax) will disappear. Recchia says Entergy should be required to continue to make some kind of payment to the state to make up for the economic impact of the sudden, unplanned shutdown."

In other words, McClaughry predicted the situation accurately.  The scenario (extract money and attempt to make decommissioning as expensive as possible) is unfolding exactly as McClaughry predicted it would unfold.

Note from blogger: "Sudden unplanned shutdown"?  Huh?

Second note from blogger:  Will these "generation tax" substitutes actually be used for Vermont Yankee employee assistance?  Your guess is as good as mine....

The Good News and the Bad News


Good News:  This is the state's final chance to extract money. In Andrew Stein's article in Vermont Digger (State Weighs What Conditions to Place on Vermont Yankee Closing) Stein quotes Ray Shadis, a long-time plant opponent.

"It is unclear at this point if Entergy VY, if it closes in 2014, will ever have to appear before the VPSB (Vermont Public Service Board), or for that matter, any state regulatory body ever again,” he (Shadis) wrote to the board. “Chopping the proposed period of extended operation really appears to narrow that possibility and proportionally heightens the need for the VPSB and the parties to ‘get it right.’”

Bad News:  It's not really bad news. More like "major uncertainty."  If the Public Service Board puts tens-of-millions-of-dollars of conditions on a certificate of public good, and Entergy had planned to operate the plant only for a few more months--what will Entergy do?  

It may not be worthwhile for Entergy to litigate in the hopes of merely several months operation.  Also, if Entergy doesn't sign the new CPG, they don't have to abide by its multi-million dollar conditions.  In other words, Entergy might quite reasonably decide not to sign, not to litigate, and simply to close the plant a few months earlier. 

I hope this would not happen, but it could. 

"Building better relations with Entergy" indeed!

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

You can link to the complete, 50-page DPS filing from the Vermont Digger article.  I link to it here for convenience. I am always grateful when Vermont Digger links to the original documents. 

John McClaughry, the man who made the prediction, is vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute (www.ethanallen.org). The Energy Education Project (directed by Meredith Angwin) is part of the Ethan Allen Institute.

After Vermont Yankee: A Poor Area Will Become Poorer

Last week, The Commons newspaper held a forum on the future of the area around Vermont Yankee.  The forum was titled: Toward a Post-Nuclear Economy.  Life after Vermont Yankee: What is Next? My previous blog post on this subject is Yankee Rowe and the Soul of a Nuclear Worker. 

A friend of mine attended the panel, and told me that the panelists were divided between two sets of people:

• Opponents of Vermont Yankee wanted to talk about how to force Entergy to do prompt decommissioning, how to force Entergy to greenfield the plant site. Their main topic was: “Let’s get Entergy!”
• Local people and groups know that Entergy is a major employer, tax-payer, and source of funds and volunteers for local not-for-profits. This employer is about to leave. For local groups, the main topic was: "How will this area cope with VY's departure?"

How can the area move forward?  How can it even begin to replace Vermont Yankee? That is the big question for most people in Vermont.

Economics 101: We Are All Part of A Community

When the community becomes poorer, most of the people in the community become poorer in one way or another.   “Too bad about the plant workers but I’ll be okay” isn't really going to work for the neighboring area.  Other communities have faced these types of problems when a major employer leaves the area:

• Hospitals, doctors and nurses are affected by the sudden local loss of hundreds of people with high-paying private health insurance. 
• Schools will see tax revenues decline: they may drop some of their sports teams, some teachers may be laid off, others may teach bigger classes. 
• Restaurants may keep shorter hours and some may fold.  
• Auto dealerships may sell fewer cars.  

The local community will become poorer.

And Southern Vermont is not that rich right now.  The median annual income for workers in Brattleboro is around $41,000 while the state-wide median is $53,000.  (From the recent Olga Peters article in The Commons.)  According to the United Way report (page 21) between 22% and 60% of Windham County children get free or reduced-price lunches.  The reduced-price-lunch percentage can be considered a proxy for estimating child poverty.

Windham county is not rich now, and it is about to get poorer.  How could the county turn this around?

Economics 102: Creating Prosperity

A community becomes prosperous by making a product or providing a service that other people will spend money to buy.  No community can stand on its own, importing nothing.  Every community has to “export” something, at least to neighboring areas, to get money to buy what it needs.  What can the Brattleboro area export?

I thought of two ways that the Brattleboro area can attempt to revitalize itself after the plant leaves.  Unfortunately, I don’t think either of these two ways will work.

The Tourist Magnet

Brattleboro can attempt to become a tourist magnet. This would not be strictly export, but it is a way of attracting money from outside the area.

While all of Vermont is a tourist magnet of some type, Brattleboro will have a hard time moving up the ladder of “destinations.” Brattleboro is trying to revitalize its downtown, and is very aware of where its downtown visitors come from. (Commons article: Brattleboro's Potential for Greatness)

In my opinion, though, Brattleboro is going to be a hard sell as a tourist destination.  The area is pretty, but doesn't have the high local income and interesting history (Privateers! Clipper ships!) that helped a place like Newburyport re-invent itself.   Brattleboro can’t start a music festival--it’s only twenty miles from the famous Marlboro Music Festival, and could hardly compete.  The area could try to be a theater or film mecca, but that would be a slow build-up.  The places that succeed at that sort of thing (Ashland Oregon for example) generally have multiple stages and have been growing their influence for many years.  The successful arts center of Santa Fe New Mexico has been an artistic center for over a century, and was near the home of the very famous artist Georgia O’Keefe.

“We don’t need Vermont Yankee, we will be an arts center” doesn’t seem to me to be a winning solution.

The Industrial Hub

The Brattleboro area can attempt to get another manufacturing facility into the town, either at the Vermont Yankee site or elsewhere.

Frankly, I think they have shot themselves in the foot about this one.  Given the “protesting” spirit of Brattleboro, most manufacturers would be hesitant to locate there.  Every factory has raw materials: many raw materials are poisonous if spilled.  If I were a manufacturer, I wouldn’t locate in a place where people are likely to begin tying themselves to the gate of  my plant if they heard I had a spill of toxic paints within the plant premises.

The people of Brattleboro might think....oh no, we ONLY protest nuclear plants! We'd love other types of factories!  However,  most manufacturers will NOT want to locate in an area where protesting so-called "environmental issues" at factory gates is a way of life.

In short, I think Brattleboro has messed itself up big-time by its attitude to Vermont Yankee.  In this WPTZ video, you can see Arnie Gundersen suggesting that a new power plant be built on the Vermont Yankee site. He doesn’t say what kind of plant, however!  Can you imagine the local protests if they attempted to run a gas pipeline to the site, build a coal plant, or build a biomass plant? Heavens!

Not an easy future

I wish the Southern Vermont area the very best, if only because many Vermont Yankee workers would like to stay in the area. However,  I don't think it is going to be a very upbeat future around there.  At least, not for many years.



I include a video from WCAX on the future of the area.


 WCAX.COM Local Vermont News, Weather and Sports-