vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen

5.06.2008

Decom debate

Tomorrow (Wednesday), the governor vetoes the Vermont Yankee decommissioning bill.

Gov. Jim Douglas will be cheered by a number of Vermont business leaders who feared that requiring the commitment of more money to the decommissioning fund will hurt the deal Vermont utilities will get when they renew their contracts with the nuclear power plant in 2012, (provided Yankee wins approval from the state to keep operating). These businesses consume a fair amount of electricity and so have a fair amount at stake.

He will be jeered by those who fear there's not enough money in the fund to pay for much beyond a padlock to put on the front gate when it's time to shut the plant down. There's $427 million in the fund (slightly less if it's going in the same direction as your 401(k) and VY owner Entergy estimates it'll cost $800 million to tidy the grounds up (more if the cost goes up like the cost of everything else does).

Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin said Saturday it'll be up to the voters in November to decide who's right on this - Douglas or the Legislature in the form of his election opponent, House Speaker Gaye Symington. That might be over-simplifying things as this might not be the only issue every voter will hinge his/her decision on.

But for the sake of argument, who do you think wins that argument?

- Terri Hallenbeck

posted by vt.Buzz | 8:56 PM |

Comments:

Douglas' only opponent is Pollina. Why does the Free Press not ask for comment from the only other announced candidate? Short on staff?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:19 PM, May 06, 2008

So when Brian Pearl becomes a candidate, does that mean that the Free Press should seek his comment on every breaking story?

The Free Press is wise to focus their efforts on viable candidates and not waste their readers' eyesight on losers like Pollina.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:43 PM, May 06, 2008

The Governor should veto Shumlin's paycheck!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:18 PM, May 06, 2008

Ya gotta give Douglas credit. If you're a corporate backer, he's consistently there for you. Vermont taxpayers, not so much. We won't face the overbearing expense of decommissioning until he's long gone. In the meantime there's an election to finance. Douglas never hesitates when there's campaign money on the line.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:02 AM, May 07, 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D76k7e-oV74

Gaye speaks....kinda.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:29 AM, May 07, 2008

Classic. She is sooo smooth.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:53 AM, May 07, 2008

Has anyone heard Shumlin's plan to advance the Vermont economy? So far he seems to be opposed to everything proposed but doesn't offer a solution.

Everyone is entitled to disagree but, if you do, you also owe it to the state to have a real plan.

Saying 'no' is not a strategy.

Captain America

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:59 AM, May 07, 2008

Once again the Republicans have to do what is right while the dim/progs demagogue an issue on the chance they might gain a few votes. We have made deals with businesses like Entergy, why not keep our word? Vermont sounds more and more like Venezuela and Shumlin and company sound more and more like Chavez every day. Does these lowlifes have no shame? Who do you think they would blame if Entergy and IBM decide they have had enough of this bulls*** and pull up stakes? Oh thats right - we'll just have VPIRG and the CLF run the state!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:14 AM, May 07, 2008

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by Entergy when they bought the plant in 2002 anticipated the decommissioning fund would be adequate in 2012, and might even have a surplus. That’s obviously not the case now. The current projections filed by Entergy use an inflation rate of just 3% and an interest rate of between 4.17% and 4.97% to achieve balance in 2032. These projections exclude many of the decommissioning expenses and do not account for an escalation in the cost to dispose of the non-fuel waste. A full decommissioning in 2012, as originally promised, would require a rate of return as high as 8.6%!

When the PSB approved the sale they were assured that Entergy would cover any shortfall in funding, and that there would be no further risk to ratepayers. The change in ownership takes the parent corporation out of the picture, and places a far greater risk on the ratepayers, and potentially the taxpayers. It’s ironic that in 2002 Entergy assured the PSB that ratepayers would not face any future risk associated with decommissioning, but they now argue that requiring a full decommissioning fund in 2012, as promised, would increase those rates. Of course most of our electricity purchased from Entergy is covered by a long term contract that runs through 2012, so the rates can’t increase until after relicensing. The scary part is that by denying full funding now, the Governor is doing nothing to keep rates low today, but he may be pushing the burden of making the fund whole onto the taxpayers of the future.

See: http://www.rpc.windham.vt.us/energy/petition/wrc2psb.pdf and http://www.rpc.windham.vt.us/energy/vy.htm#petition

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:17 AM, May 07, 2008

Sen Shumlin has presented only 2 scenarios- either we fund the full deccommisioning fund now or we pay for it later when shut down happens. It would seem logical that maybe a 3rd alternative could apply and that would be to add to the fund on a annual basis as needed and as calculated by the RNC (with the PSB), NOT Shumlin and the Legislature.
Shumlin & Co are clear losers in this issue- he is gambling on the future energy costs in VT as well as retaining manufacturers who use/need low cost energy. The people of Essex should be a bit concerned if IBM leaves VT for less expensive energy. Employees are at risk more so than employers- they lose their jobs when a company moves. It is easier for companies to relocate because other states are enticing businesses willing to relocate extremely generous tax packages.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:59 AM, May 07, 2008

Hyperbole like saying the more than $400 million is only enough to put "a padlock on the fence" is more of the seriously misleading spin on this issue. Too bad so much of it comes from our media.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:13 AM, May 07, 2008

If ever there was an oxymoron it is "Vermont media."

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:15 AM, May 07, 2008

Well, VPIRG will now have an OTHER business to harass. Bennington WalMart wants to expand. Perhaps they might increase their pharmacy section seeing as how the company is taking the lead in this country to provide lower-cost drugs to everyone. (Another batch of generic $4 drugs announced last week)But until they start stocking Birkenstocks, forcing union membership on it's unwilling employees, and stop buying shoes from Korea so that the middle class and poor have to pay $50 instead of $10, I'm sure this will just be another rallying call for the flatlander trustfunder elite.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:22 AM, May 07, 2008

Interesting that you all get very upset if Vermont tazpayers have to subsidize other people, but think it's just fine if you get ripped off by a corporation.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:39 AM, May 07, 2008

Bubba, NEK and Capt. America loves them some corporate welfare.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:41 AM, May 07, 2008

warren--to use Coop's line....
what is your evidence of corporate welfare?
If you don't have the list, you can probably get it off Bernie's website.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:54 AM, May 07, 2008

It’s bazaar to be engaged in a non-attack, issue based discussion on this blog, but heck, I’ll move the ball forward.

In a post above ‘nek’ said: “Sen Shumlin has presented only 2 scenarios- either we fund the full decommissioning fund now or we pay for it later when shut down happens. It would seem logical that maybe a 3rd alternative could apply and that would be to add to the fund on a annual basis as needed and as calculated by the RNC (with the PSB), NOT Shumlin and the Legislature.”

Sadly, this is probably what will have to happen, although the Entergy purchase deal wasn’t designed to work that way.

Please note the following from page 65 of the Decision of The Board (PSB) in docket 6545 which covered the sale in 2002: “By contrast, the sale to ENVY provides the actual elimination of all ratepayer contributions. Indeed, ENVY’s commitment to make whole any future deficiencies in necessary decommissioning monies---whether caused by technology changes, lower fund investment returns, or NRC regulatory changes---is a very positive aspect of the proposal before us.”

The sale docket is clear that PSB believed that Entergy would make whole any shortfall in the decommissioning fund, and that the power purchase agreement in place would insulate Vermont ratepayers from these costs. The ongoing failure to manage this shortfall has left us in a quandary that can only be harmful to the interests of Vermonters.

DPS and PSB have not kept adequate track of the decommissioning fund, and have not compelled Entergy/ENVY to make contributions while the 2002 power purchase agreement has been in force. Thus we will enter a new power purchase agreement in 2012 with a significant decommissioning shortfall, and ratepayers will likely be forced to pick up the tab. If we don’t have a new power purchase agreement in 2012 because the plant does not receive an extended license or CPG, then the taxpayers of Vermont will need to cover the shortfall. Either way, Vermonters will lose because of an oversight failure on the part of our state government.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:04 AM, May 07, 2008

NEK said...

"warren--to use Coop's line....
what is your evidence of corporate welfare?
If you don't have the list, you can probably get it off Bernie's website."

Well, little fella, when evidence exists, it's usually not that hard to find.

Is it your clueless-cretin contention that the likes of Entergy receives no corporate welfare in the form of tax-breaks and Federal subsidies?

Even the shrub-shillin', gop-slop spewin', lunatic-fringe likes of the CNS confirms they do in the following piece:

Rockers Join Dems in Opposing Nuke Energy Subsidies
By Monisha Bansal
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 24, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Opposed to subsidies for new nuclear power plants, rock stars, environmental groups, and members of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming met on Capitol Hill to voice their concerns about such a provision in the energy bill.

Without the federal subsidies, nuclear plants would have never been constructed, suggested Graham Nash, singer for Crosby, Stills & Nash, at a Capitol Hill press conference on Tuesday. Country rocker Bonnie Raitt said that the industry could not get insurance coverage, which explains why it must rely on federal subsidies.

"They wouldn't build one brick if they didn't get subsidized -- not one," musician Graham Nash told Cybercast News Service."There are a lot of good things in this bill. We can't throw out the baby with the bath water, but we need to get rid of these loan guarantees for an industry that has never, ever supported itself." Watch Video

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the select committee, said: "There are some elements out there that are attempting to hijack this bill and turn it into an automatic teller machine for the nuclear industry that is supposed to be standing on its own." Watch video

Markey said the bill has a provision that would give "unlimited loan guarantees by the taxpayer" to the nuclear power industry, which has always operated with subsidies from the federal government. Watch video

He added that the government should be investing in solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal energies to curb greenhouse gas emissions and dependence on foreign oil.

"I don't want to jump out of the global warming frying pan into the nuclear fire," said Rep. John Hall (D-N.Y.). "There are other choices." Watch video

Markey said these alternative energies "deliver more bang for the buck than the nuclear baby Huey, which gobbles up subsidies, but never seems to grow up."

Again, little fella, when evidence exists, it's not that hard to find.

Always a pleasure.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 10:26 AM, May 07, 2008

yawn

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:17 AM, May 07, 2008

jw brings in his brain-dead druggie "rockers" as "experts" on subsidies to business! Wow! Crosby, Stills, and Nash! Bonnie Riatt! What happened to Keith Richards and Brian Wilson?

Why am I not surprised.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:43 AM, May 07, 2008

Earlier another poster used CNS as an information source and JW discredited it in his typical charming manner labeling it as factually-challenged, ignorant slop.

Apparently now that Graham Nash has been quoted supporting one of Coopy's positions, it's ok.

Birds of a feather.....

Captain America

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:06 PM, May 07, 2008

thanks 10:04 for the info- I think this relationship has been strenuous at best- some due to external factors which the US should be responsible for.

As for the expert testimony of Crosby, Stills & Nash, spearheaded by Rep Ed Markey- can't we get a 2nd opinion from the Bernie Sanders/Willie Nelson/Britney Spears trio? Now that would be credible evidence!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:21 PM, May 07, 2008

what a cast of losers
Crosby Stliis and Nash ./..Nuclear physicists NOT

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:14 PM, May 07, 2008

........and jw is their leader.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:18 PM, May 07, 2008

Just watched some of the TV coverage of the veto and heard John Dillon's piece on VPR. I don't think this veto hurts Douglas very much, if at all. Voters for whom VY is a swing issue were likely voting Democratic or Progressive anyway; moderates will probably break on the issue in equal numbers regardless.

The safety issue has already been neutralized by Douglas signing on, albeit only after the cooling tower collapse, to the independent safety audit. The decommissioning fund is a complicated financial issue that even reasonable people could conclude looks like nothing more than the continued effort by Yankee opponents to force the plant to shut down. And the charge of meddling in a regulatory (PSB) process that they set up themselves to isolate utility regulation from political pressure makes the Dems and Progs look like hypocrites.

Good issue for Pollina and Symington to fire up the base on, though. And ensures that Shumlin can fend off any challenge by Pillsbury, whose voting record on VY has always given some on the left fits.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:47 PM, May 07, 2008

And right on cue, it's the coalition of the clueless cretins contingent spewing their ignorant, ill-informed, factually-challenged, fundamentally-dishonest, dimwitted, delusional dreck to, once again, prove that there's no point they can't miss and no clue they can't not find.

Why am I not surprised.

Gee, I hate to confuse your ignorant asses to the facts, little fellas, but let me recap the relevant information for ya since your recall and grasp of the facts is suspect at best.

At 9:41, NEK, Warren Buffett informed your ignorant ass how you clueless cretins loves ya that corporate welfare, to which, you responded with you usual specious, unsubstantiated allegations and cited me for consistently asking your ignorant ass for evidence to support your reliably-wrong, factually-challenged, psychotic slop.

At that point, you asked him for evidence in support of his claim, but since your clueless cabeza saw fit to cite me, I'll ask you again, is it you again, is it your clueless cretin contention that the likes of Entergy and Exxon don't receive corporate welfare as even the lunatic-fringe likes of the CNS are forced to report to gain a shred of journalistic integrity and impartiality?

That's what I thought.

The relevant facts and evidence remain the relevant facts and evidence, little fella, irrespective of whether it's Bonnie Raitt or Gretchen Wilson on the bill.

They didn't do the research, little fella. They didn't claim to do the research. They're just playin' the show.

Again, when even the lunatic-fringe likes of CNS are forced to admit the likes of Entergy and Exxon are the beneficiaries of corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks and Federal Subsidies, they're the beneficiaries of corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks and Federal Subsidies and even the factually-challenged, fundamentally dishonest likes of your ass can't deny it.

Always a pleasure.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 8:39 PM, May 07, 2008

Shumlin sucks - I hope Pillsbury beats him!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:43 PM, May 07, 2008

Anonymous has left a new comment on the post "Decom debate":

"Earlier another poster used CNS as an information source and JW discredited it in his typical charming manner labeling it as factually-challenged, ignorant slop."

Well, Auntie Amerika, since, at best, your IQ range over a 24 hour period can be characterized charitably as "good weather for sugarin'" on your best day, clearly, I'll have to dumb it down for ya.

Like fixed news, CNS is wingnut nonsense. Like fixed news, it is wholly without merit factually, legally and journalistically.

Indeed, my sole purpose in citing it was to illustrate to NEK and the dim and dimmer likes of you and your nameless-nitwit/coalition of the clueless compatriots that when even the lunatic-fringe likes of CNS is forced to admit that the likes of Entergy and Exxon are beneficiaries of corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks and other federal subsidies, your ignorant ass is toast and you're dumb, you're scum and ya got bupkis.

Graham Nash didn't do the research. He didn't claim to do the research. Even the lunatic-fringe likes of CNS couldn't claim Nash claimed to do the research, schmuck.

He's just playing the benefit, bonehead.

So, once again, when even the utterly-psychotic, gop-slop spewin' likes of CNS, says you're ignorant trash with bupkis, you're ignorant trash with bupkis.

Of course, we didn't need the lunatic-fringe likes of CNS to confirm that you're farcockteh meshuggah.

Back in the attic now, Auntie Amerika. You need your rest.

Always a pleasure.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 10:16 PM, May 07, 2008

Corporate blackmail is alive and well.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:45 AM, May 08, 2008

Justice and common sense prevails. This is a victory for the 352,000 civilian workers in Vermont whose employers will not be forced to leave because of high utility rates. The rest of the employees are more insulated against higher costs and will keep their jobs.
I think anon of 7:45 has it backwards- who was doing the blackmailing?- I think Shumlin & Co were using coercion to force Entergy to close. I can't wait for his third attempt next year. (If he is still around)

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:02 AM, May 08, 2008

The YouTube on Gaye Symington would be hysterically funny if it wasn't so sad.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:06 AM, May 08, 2008

The YouTube on Gaye Symington would be hysterically funny if it wasn't so sad.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:06 AM, May 08, 2008

I watched that and it was so sad and embarrassing - I can't believe that person is running for Governor.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:07 AM, May 08, 2008

How can anyone give a credible estimate for decommissioning a nuclear plant when no none has figured out where to store the waste for the long term?

We've had over 50 years to figure out what to do with the waste. No one has come up with a viable plan or repository.

Entergy is trying to change the deal by shifting liability to a Limited Liability Company that has no assets other than 5 aging nuclear plants.

How can requiring Entergy to live up to the agreement to bear responsibility for the waste they have generated be seen as unreasonable?
How can it be seen as "changing the deal"?
How can it not be in the best interests of all Vermonters?

What intelligent negotiator starts the negotiation, as in for cheaper electric rates for Vermonters, by conceding everything before the negotiation even starts?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:35 PM, May 08, 2008

"We've had over 50 years to figure out what to do with the waste. No one has come up with a viable plan or repository."

And with this you have hit the central issue that neither side wants to own up to. Why are we at the point today that we have no viable plan on how to decommission a site? It is not as if we didn't know the day would come.

Each side of the legislative aisle has had a chance to proactively address this over time and has done everything it could to sidestep it.

We can all have an opinion on whether nuclear energy is good or bad but at the end of the day need to address the reality of the situation. It isn't going away.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:28 AM, May 09, 2008

Anonymous said...
"We've had over 50 years to figure out what to do with the waste. No one has come up with a viable plan or repository."

"And with this you have hit the central issue that neither side wants to own up to. Why are we at the point today that we have no viable plan on how to decommission a site? It is not as if we didn't know the day would come."

Nice try, nitwit. No sale.

It is not the job of the opponents of nuclear power to come up with a plan to safely dispose of nuclear waste. Their case has already been made by virtue of the fact that both sides acknowledge that the need for such a plan and system to safely dispose of such waste continues to exist.

If Entergy and the proponents of nuclear power want to do business in this State or anywhere else in this Country the burden is upon them to demonstrate they can safely and cost-effectively dispose of their waste and produce energy cleanly and cost-effectively to justify their existence and their continuing need for corporate welfare.

"..We can all have an opinion on whether nuclear energy is good or bad but at the end of the day need to address the reality of the situation. It isn't going away."

No, little factually-challenged fella, what "isn't going away" is the fact that nuclear waste is highly-toxic, remains so for a long period of time and nothing has substantively altered that reality in the 29 years since TMI and the 22 years since Chernobyl and AmGen, Entergy or whatever they call themselves a month, a year, or 5 years from now should be treated like every other company doing business in Vermont while storing large amounts of nuclear waste on its banks

That is not a matter for debate, it is objective fact.

So, little factually-challenged fella, when your ignorant, anonymous ass can demonstrate those factors can and have been safely and effectively dealt with and they can go a few years without getting cited for drunken employees, collapsing cooling towers, misplaced fuel rods attempting to raid their decom fund for other uses in other locations and/or some other infraction I'll give ya the time of day.

However, unless and until you can do that, you remain ignorant trash with bupkis.

Always a pleasure.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 7:24 PM, May 09, 2008

JW said...."It is not the job of the opponents of nuclear power to come up with a plan to safely dispose of nuclear waste. Their case has already been made by virtue of the fact that both sides acknowledge that the need for such a plan and system to safely dispose of such waste continues to exist."

And that statement defines exactly why YOU are the single biggest idiot on this board. The simple fact that you can say its not the opponents job to define a plan shows the us -v- them mentality with which you and you ilk approaches every point. Rather than work collaboratively to find a solution to a problem, you would rather stand back, shout insults and tear down anything and everything brought forward.

The world is full of problems, numbskull. Assigning blame after the fact is a bit like shutting the barn door after the horse has escaped. Nutcases like you would rather let them fester until them explode so complete blame can be assigned than to take a risk by working to find an implementable solution. That is why this is a problem. That is why the Social Security crisis can not be solved. That is why there is gridlock in Montpelier and Washington.

Anti-nuke fans have put nothing feasible on the table as an efficient alternative to our current dependence on oil. It's been 50 years now and all you can do is talk about the risks of nuclear. That takes no native intelligence just a big mouth.

Let’s see in VT we don’t like nuclear even though it’s the cheapest available form available, Oil…no…big oil companies are evil and then there are those pesky Arabs. Coal…too big of a polluter. Wind power…no, those unsightly towers ruin the view of the landscape. Solar….nope. Its years away at best.

Solve the problem smart guy. It's Saturday. Unless you are pulling a shift at Ben and Jerry's define your energy plan. We are all waiting and all ears. Put up or shut up.

Captain America

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:36 AM, May 10, 2008

Decisions should be made with complete information not sound bites.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:51 PM, May 10, 2008