Stock analysts saw last week’s news that New York state utility regulators nixed the Enexus move by which Vermont Yankee would be sliced off into a new company with five other nuclear power plants as the end of the line for the deal.

“We expect this vote in New York will end the spin-off plans,” Morningstar stock analysts said.

They also don’t seem to give two hoots about Vermont Yankee’s continued operation after 2012, which makes one wonder if Entergy Corp.’s board of directors will feel the same way.

“Renewal or no renewal, we see little incremental value in the Yankee plant for shareholders based on its relatively high cost, small capacity, and onerous power purchase contracts that we expect to persist for at least another decade. We think a decision to shut down Vermont Yankee when its license expires in March 2012 would not have a substantial impact on our fair value estimate,” the report said.

_ Terri Hallenbeck

Labels: Vermont Yankee

Vermont Yankee officials declared victory this morning over the nuclear power plant's tritium leak. Free Press photographer Glenn Russell has video of the announcement.

Check it out HERE:

Meanwhile, New York state utility regulators were delivering the plant's owners bad news in Albany - they rejected Entergy Corp.'s plans to move six nuclear power plants _ two in New York state and Vermont Yankee among them _ into a separate company.

- Terri Hallenbeck

Labels: Vermont Yankee

A few days after the Vermont Senate voted against letting the Public Service Board go ahead with a decision on Vermont Yankee’s future, Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, D-Windham, went on a Fox TV business show that he surely is regretting now.

The show’s host, Stuart Varney, grilled Shumlin about where Vermont would get its power if not from the nuclear power plant. “You must be going back to coal or fossil fuels,” Varney challenged.

Shumlin answered that the state would turn to renewables. “The power market in America is going to dramatically shift,” Shumlin said. “Germany right now is producing 30 percent of its juice from solar.”

“Are you sure 30 percent of it comes from solar?” Varney countered.

“It happens to be a fact,” Shumlin said, until Varney’s colleagues starting surfing the Web and came up with indications that solar amounted to no more than 1 percent of Germany’s power. “I’m not really an expert on Germany,” Shumlin said. “That’s what I’ve been told.”

As it turns out, Germany’s goal for renewable energy is 30 percent. Supporters of Vermont Yankee and the Republican Governors Association have made hay of the interview, sending out e-mails and posting the interview online.

Shumlin said he was mistaken about Germany, but that he merely provided incorrect statistics, not under oath, and never suggested Vermont would replace all of Vermont Yankee’s power with renewables. Nor, he said, was the decision not to endorse Vermont Yankee’s continued operation based on that information. Varney, he said, started the show by spreading misinformation that Vermont would be turning to coal. “Only Fox News has that view,” he said.

The irony, of course, is that nothing has hurt Vermont Yankee’s cause more than its own misinformation in denying the existence of underground pipes that were later found to be leaking tritium.

The Fox interview can be seen at this pro-Vermont Yankee Web site.


- Terri Hallenbeck

Labels: Sen. Peter Shumlin, Vermont Yankee

A week ago Sunday, I was strolling down a sidewalk in southern California when a woman from Greenpeace approached and asked for our help in saving the whales. There was a whale festival going on in honor of gray whale migration season.

The conversation inevitably turned to where we were from. Before I knew it, pretty much my first conversation in California turned to Vermont Yankee.

“Oh, we just shut down the nuclear power plant there," she said. "Because of Greenpeace.”

To which I replied, “Sort of.”

As in, Greenpeace sort of was involved and the plant has sort of been shut down.

I didn't expect the whale woman to know all the details, any more than I have a clue about whales. It struck me, though, the way the word was spreading.

Greenpeace lobbied against Vermont Yankee, but one might argue that a number of other organizations were also involved and that Vermont Yankee itself played quite a role in the vote the Senate recently took not to support continued operation.

It's also very much still running. As irony would have it, I’d been there for a tour just two days earlier and stood in the control room while they powered it back up to 100 percent from running at 70-something percent for fuel maintenance.

Technically speaking, what the Senate did was vote not to allow the Public Service Board to rule on Vermont Yankee’s continued operation after March 2012. That vote could still be reversed or challenged.

The whale-saver might not have had all the nuclear power details down, but it goes to show you this story is migrating faster than a gray whale.

- Terri Hallenbeck

Labels: Vermont Yankee

Can a week go by without something happening that involves Vermont Yankee?

Not this week, at least.

Wednesday afternoon, the Public Service Board will hold a hearing on whether Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee should cease operating the nuclear plant until it finds and fixes the tritium leak.

The hearing will also consider whether there is cause to revoke the plant’s certificate of public good and whether the company should be penalized for the radioactive leaks.

Meanwhile, down at the plant, a "remotely operated vehicle" continues its probe of a tunnel and drainpipes that have been found to leak.

According to Monday’s dispatch from Entergy, "The inspection will allow engineers to determine the source for the small amount of leakage remaining internal to the tunnel and develop additional remediation steps that can be taken to completely eliminate the leak. As previously reported, water coming from the pipe is not reaching the environment. The water is being collected in a sump for processing through plant systems as designed."

Does it help Yankee's case before the board that there's been progress in identifying the cause of the leak?

— Nancy Remsen

Labels: Public Service Board, Vermont Yankee

When this legislative session started in January, we knew the fact that the Senate contained four people running for governor and one for lieutenant governor would make for some interesting political theater. Last Wednesday might just have been the command performance.

The Senate’s vote on the future of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant was oozing with political undertones.

Scene 1:

Sen. Phil Scott, R-Washington, (candidate for lieutenant governor), started things off by questioning the Senate Rules Committee vote to allow the Yankee bill to reach the floor without ever meeting in person. Standing almost directly behind Scott in the audience was Mark Snelling (fellow Republican candidate for lieutenant governor).

Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, D-Windham,(candidate for governor) polled the committee members and declared the approval unanimous. He claimed it was a common practice.

Under questioning from Scott, Sen. Kevin Mullin, R-Rutland, said he didn’t believe he gave his approval.

A recess was called so the senators could sort this out, at which Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie, (candidate for governor) said, “We’ve got a problem.”

To which Shumlin responded, “You’re creating a problem.”

Back on the floor, Scott called it a “flawed process.”

Shumlin accused Scott waiting to raise the issue in public when news cameras were rolling.

Then Mullin backed down, suggesting he and Shumlin had misunderstood each other and that he would never vote by informal polling again.

“I don’t want anyone to think my colleague from Windham was trying to pull a fast one,” Mullin said, referring to Shumlin. That pretty much left Scott hanging out alone.

Scott would continue challenging the Yankee bill. In the end, he was one of four senators to vote in support of the plant, calling the vote “a blatant political maneuver.”

Afterward, Scott said, referring to his own moves, “It may be political suicide.”

His support of Vermont Yankee might help him in the Republican primary, but then there’s the general election.

Scene II:

Shumlin, meanwhile, had a more subtle clash with Sen. Susan Bartlett, D-Lamoille, (fellow candidate for governor).

A few days before the vote, Bartlett issued a statement saying that though she was against Vermont Yankee operation after 2012, Shumlin’s timing on the vote was “more political theater than making good public policy.”

Shumlin slapped back, telling Vermont Public Radio the next day, “I understand that politicians don't always want to go on record taking courageous positions but it's time to move ahead."

A couple days later on the Senate floor, Bartlett had her response, "This vote is not an act of courage. Education reform was an act of courage. Civil unions was an act of courage. Equal marriage was an act of courage. This is a no-brainer."

Scene III:

Dubie, who presides over the Senate but doesn’t vote except to break a tie and doesn’t engage in the debate, had plenty to say when we asked him afterward, most of it directed at Shumlin:
- The Senate had not considered all the implications of the vote, should not have voted now, and if he had had a vote it would have been in support of the plant, he said.
- He noted that the Senate Finance Committee, which sent the bill to the Senate, is all Democrats, by virtue of appointments Shumlin made. “There’s not a contrarion view on the Finance Committee,” he said.

- Terri Hallenbeck

Labels: politics Vermont Legislature, Vermont Yankee

At least 14 towns are slated to weigh in on Vermont Yankee’s future at town meeting this year. Organizers of the anti-Yankee advisory resolution sought out towns that did not vote on the issue last year.

This year, resolutions are on the ballot in Sharon, Thetford, Cabot, Danville, Peacham, Bristol, Jamaica, Winooski, Moretown, Huntington, Montgomery, Cambridge, Waitsfield, and Brookfield. Residents in other towns could bring it up under other business from the floor.

In Woodstock on Saturday, a resolution to support the Senate’s vote last week came up on the floor and passed 20-11.

- Terri Hallenbeck

Labels: Vermont Yankee

Word came out Friday about the Public Service Board's decision to hear the case for whether Vermont Yankee should be shut down until the leaking tritium is stopped. The board will hold an initial hearing at 1:30 p.m. March 10.

How common is it for a state regulator to ponder a nuclear shutdown? Not so common. Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Neil Sheehan said he knows of no other similar entity in another state that has opened a case to consider closing a nuclear plant down.

Does the board have the authority to shut the plant down? In its order issued last week, the board asserted it does when it comes to economic and nonradiological-health-and-safety consequences.

"It appears indisputable that the leaksmay result in increased site contamination that could substantially increase decommissioning costs. Increased site contamination could also delay completion of the decommissioning process, which in turn could affect the future economic use of the site," the board said.

"Whether the board could order the shut down of Vermont Yankee in response to these concerns, or in response to environmental damage associated with the leaks, is less clear, and requires more extensive legal briefing by the parties. Even if we were ultimately to conclude that we were preempted from closing down the plant, however, there may be other non-preempted actions we could take to ameliorate economic and land-use impacts of the leaks."

- Terri Hallenbeck

Labels: Vermont Yankee

The New York Times takes a national view of the Vermont Senate's vote yesterday. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/us/25nuke.html

Labels: vermont legislature, Vermont Yankee

Because we're always looking out for you, The Burlington Free Press will carry live coverage of the Senate’s vote on Vermont Yankee’s future Wednesday at www.burlingtonfreepress.com.

The debate is scheduled to begin at 10:30 a.m.

That's legislative time, so be flexible.

- Terri Hallenbeck

Labels: vermont legislature, Vermont Yankee

The Senate Finance Committee today revealed the bill they'll be working with on Vermont Yankee's future.

The gist:

The general assembly determines that continued operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station for 20 years following its currently scheduled closing date of March 21, 2012 will promote the general welfare of the state.

The general assembly finds that storage of spent nuclear fuel derived from the operation of the VYNPS for 20 years following its currently scheduled closing date of March 21, 2012 will promote the general welfare of the state.

The general assembly approves until March 21, 2032 the continued operation of the VYNPS and the storage of spent nuclear fuel derived from the operation of the VYNPS, provided the VYBPS obtains from the public service board and any other agencies such certificates, permits and approvals related to the continued operation of the VYNPS and storage of spent fuel at the VYNPS as are required by law.

Also Wednesday, Attorney General Bill Sorrell delivered a letter to the legislative leaders and governor saying he's embarked on an investigation of information Vermont Yankee provided to the state.

He said VY owner Entergy Corp. has promised to "cooperate fully," sharing its own investigation with him and indicating it will waive its attorney/client privelege on correspondences regarding the Public Service Board.

He said Entergy has promised it hasn't and won't destroy documents.

He told them it could take months to draw any real conclusions.

If you haven't seen Free Press photographer Glenn Russell's video of the VY plant, do so immediately HERE.

- Terri Hallenbeck

Labels: Vermont Yankee

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko spoke today at a conferene and included these remarks about the tritium leak at Vermont Yankee at the end of a more general speech:

Before I close my remarks, I would like to make one last point. For all the attention thatnew reactor issues receive, the NRC must always stay focused on ensuring that the existing fleet continues to operate in a safe, secure, and environmentally sensitive manner. That is our core mission, and I assure you that the agency has not lost sight of that. I’ll share one example of our
steady focus. It concerns an issue that has drawn a good bit of attention lately—leaking pipes and tritium. There is some concern as to whether tritium from the Vermont Yankee plant has leaked into the Connecticut River. Elected officials in that region have expressed considerable and very understandable concern, and not just about Vermont Yankee.

The headlines have not been pretty. As a scientist, I know the relative risk of tritium. In the grand scheme of radiation, it is well down the scale, but in the area of public perception, it takes on greater significance. People are asking legitimate questions— what’s leaking, where’s it leaking, how much is leaking, and—most importantly—what’s being done to deal with the problem? The NRC always inspects licensees who have such leaks and in each case makes certain that licensees are taking the appropriate steps to find the source, and to protect the public
and the environment. Inspections are ongoing at Vermont Yankee—once the source is identified, it will be fixed promptly and correctly. The situation was in many respects the same at the Oyster Creek plant in New Jersey last year. That episode told us a great deal about how buried pipe behaves over the years and the importance of ensuring that the right piping is installed in the first place. That situation is being dealt with as well.

We always have to ask ourselves at every turn whether we can we do more. That’s why
the agency is participating in a buried piping task force to evaluate the need for specific corrosion protection standards that could be implemented at nuclear power plant facilities. That’s why, last fall, I asked the agency staff to take a look at our general approach for inspecting and dealing with aging pipes. While we feel that the program we now have in place is sound, I personally think that more can be done.

Following reports of leaks at a few plants, the NRC created a special task force in 2006 to conduct a lessons-learned review of these incidents. The task force made more than two dozen recommendations—a great many of those have been incorporated in the guidance we provide to plants. While there are NRC requirements for documenting releases into the groundwater and relied on licensees to adhere to certain measures as best practice. Guidance is one thing. A regulatory requirement is another. Therefore, I intend to ask the staff to relook at the 2006 lessons learned recommendations and determine whether any changes in this area might be
advisable. I look at it this way: From time to time building codes are amended as civil engineers see areas that can be improved. This may be the time to take that step in the nuclear field.

And, because we want the public to fully understand all aspects of the tritium issue, the staff is exploring, at my request, conducting forums to discuss the tritium issue and to hear from the public on their thoughts. More specific information will be made available as soon as possible.

Be assured that on this issue and all others, the NRC will continue striving to be a strong, effective regulator. As Chairman, I will do my best to ensure that the NRC acts firmly and decisively and conducts itself openly and transparently in fulfilling our core mission and preparing for new issues and challenges. Again, thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts with you today.

- Terri Hallenbeck

Labels: Vermont Yankee

Nothing has happened regarding Vermont Yankee in recent weeks to improve the nuclear power plant’s chances of winning legislators’ support for its continued operation after March 2012.

If anything, more lawmakers are becoming more comfortable with the idea of voting against letting the Public Service Board decide on continued operation.

“If the vote was today, I’d vote against it,” Rep. Joe Krawczyk, R-Bennington, vice chairman of the House Natural Resources & Energy Committee, said Thursday.

Don’t be surprised if there is a vote by the end of the month, before the Legislature breaks for Town Meeting.

— Terri Hallenbeck

Labels: vermont legislature, Vermont Yankee

Vermont Yankee’s troubles with tritium and other issues have certainly raised the specter that the plant might not be give permission by the state to operate for another 20 years after March 2012.

Even if it’s not the Legislature or the Public Service Board that pulls the plug on the plant, Entergy Corp. Chief Executive Officer Wayne Leonard suggested last week the company might not be interested in keeping the plant. Leonard said last week during a corporate earnings conference call that Vermont Yankee "is simply not covering its cost of capital."

So then what would happen to that parcel of land alongside the Connecticut River in Vernon if Vermont Yankee opponents got their wish and the plant shut down in 2012? Last we knew, the company had 60 years to mothball the plant in a process called Safstor (CQ: No e’s) while letting the decommissioning fund accumulate interest. Plenty of people don’t feel good about leaving things hanging that long.

Twice, the governor has vetoed legislation that would make Vermont Yankee owner Entergy Corp. sock more money away for decommissioning the plant. This Legislature has had noted success in overriding other vetoes by the governor, but not this one.

A new bill has been introduced this year that would require a nuclear power plant to create two trust funds _ one to restore the site to greenfield status, the other to pay for long-term management of spent nuclear fuel.

One of its sponsors, Rep. Tony Klein, D-East Montpelier, said he doesn’t think the Legislature will pass the bill this year, declining to specify why, but he said he plans to bring it back next year.

"Safstor would be off the table, absolutely," Klein said. "It would set a date certain that greenfielding would have to occur by."

The state Public Service Department has opposed the Legislature’s decommissioning bills, but Commissioner David O’Brien has also said he’s not comfortable with Safstor.

Deputy Commissioner Steve Wark said the department hasn’t taken a stance on Klein’s new bill, but he said it "could be appropriate" for the state to zero in on setting requirements for greenfield status and managing spent fuel in the absence of a federal solution to that issue.

Vermont Yankee opponent Bob Stannard, a lobbyist for Citizens Action Network, has not lined up behind decommissioning legislation so far for fear that lawmakers would see it as assurance that the plant can continue to operate. Now he’s ready for such legislation. "Some sort of decommissioning bill has to pass the Legislature that says Entergy Corp. is responsible," Stannard said.

- Terri Hallenbeck

Labels: vermont legislature, Vermont Yankee

One of the new monitoring wells at Vermont Yankee has a whole lot more picocuries of tritium than we've heard about in the other wells. This is how the company reported the news:

The continuing sampling of monitoring wells is helping the investigation team locate the source. The good news is that one newly installed well, located just to the east of the plant’s condensate water storage tank and some underground piping, appears to be closer to the source because its concentration is 774,825 picocuries per liter.

The well that was first identified with tritium is now at 36,261 picocuries per liter. However, a well about 75 feet to the south of that one that has been as high as 80,458 picocuries per liter, is now down to 69,392. Another recently installed well further south is at 1,940 picocuries per liter, up from a recent level of 1,800 Such variation is as expected with variations of groundwater flow.

The state Health Department's version was somewhat different:

"Vermont Yankee reported today that a new groundwater monitoring well, GZ-7, resulted in a sample with a tritium concentration of about 774,825 picocuries per liter (pCi/l).

GZ-7 is located near the station's condensate water storage tank, between the Advanced Off-Gas Building and the Reactor and Turbine Buildings. (MAP)

This is the highest concentration of tritium yet reported to date. These new findings may indicate the well is near a source of leakage. It may also narrow down the search area and systems to be searched. Groundwater contamination to this degree would be more likely to be from a system of high tritium radioactivity. This raises certain potential sources of the leak up in priority interest.

Vermont Yankee reports that, according to their tests, the other wells on site are still at, or near, previously reported levels of contamination. Specifically GZ-3, the original well found to be contaminated, is at about 36,000 pCi/l, GZ-4 is less than 2,000 pCi/l, and GZ-14 is about 70,000 pCi/l.

Vermont Yankee reports that as of the last verified analysis, all wells are not showing evidence of other radioactivity by gamma spectroscopy.

To date, all drinking water well tests are negative for elevated tritium. Vermont Yankee is now testing the drinking water well nearest the contaminated groundwater monitoring wells, the Construction Office Building well, every day."

- Terri Hallenbeck

Labels: Vermont Yankee

There was physical evidence Wednesday that the Statehouse has become a hostile environment for Entergy Corp., owner of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.

The Senate Finance Committee was holding a meeting about Entergy's power price offer to the state's largest utilities. Marc Potkin, an Entergy Nuclear vice president for price marketing, was testifying.

The committee room was packed, as if often if for Vermont Yankee matters. This time, the crowd included an independent film producer who is working on a documentary, with a video camera on a tripod and a large boom mic hanging overhead.

Not long into Potkin's testimony, the film guy went to move a mic on the table in front of Potkin. In the process, he knocked Sen. Dick McCormack's coffee over and onto Potkin. It was not a highlight of hospitality in the Vermont Legislature, but Entergy these days isn't quite in a position to raise a stink. Potkin said the coffee wasn't hot.

- Terri Hallenbeck

Labels: vermont legislature, Vermont Yankee

VY vote this year? Maybe

Once upon a time, the Legislature was balking at voting on Vermont Yankee’s future and the governor who was pushing for a vote. Now that tritium is leaking into groundwater at the plant from pipes that company officials said didn’t exist, things appear different.


Gov. Jim Douglas, a longtime supporter of the plant, for the first time last week said the Legislature should hold off on a vote.


Meanwhile, pressure is mounting on the Legislature to vote sooner rather than later, against the Vernon plant’s continued operation after 2012.


Democratic gubernatorial candidate Matt Dunne on Jan. 21 called for a vote. Fellow candidate Deb Markowitz chimed in last week. So did the Washington Electric Cooperative board.

House Natural Resources and Energy Committee Chairman Tony Klein, D-East Montpelier, said Monday he wants the state Public Service Board to turn Vermont Yankee owner Entergy Corp. down on its corporate restructuring plan and indicate it plans to turn the plant down on continued operation.

"If they don’t I believe the Legislature will take action before adjourning for the summer," Klein said.

Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, D-Windham, said in December that the Senate might be ready to vote on Vermont Yankee this year, and it’s beginning to look like that could happen.

House Speaker Shap Smith, D-Morristown, said legislators are awaiting a revised report from the public oversight panel on the plant’s reliability. The panel has re-formed to look at corrected information following Entergy’s admission last month that the plant does have underground pipes with radioactive material that it had previously denied.

That report is due back Feb. 16, though panel member Arnie Gundersen told Klein’s committee last week it might take longer.

Smith said he did think the Public Service Board has enough information to reject the corporate restructuring plan.

VY and the election

No matter what happens with a vote this year on Vermont Yankee, last week’s surprise announcement by Douglas that he wanted a timeout on decisions about Vermont Yankee drew a clearer-than-ever picture that the issue of the nuclear power plant’s future is going to be hanging still when a new governor takes office next January.

If you thought Vermont Yankee was a big election issue before, it just became even more so. It will be a new governor’s Public Service Department that will be advising the Public Service Board on such matters.

That has not escaped the notice of the candidates who hope to replace Douglas. As mentioned above, two of the Democratic candidates called for a decision against continued operation after 2012.

Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie, the Republican candidate, joined Douglas at his Yankee announcement last week. Dubie agreed with Douglas that a "timeout" was needed on Vermont Yankee decisions and focused most of his comments on concern for the 650 jobs at the plant.

"I am deeply concerned about the 650 people who work for Vermont Yankee; I am concerned about their jobs and their families; I am concerned about all the small businesses in the area that depend on VY and its employees. My cousin is an IBEW member who works at VY. I am concerned about his uncertain future.," Dubie said. "And I am extremely disappointed that VY management has compromised those jobs through repeated breaches of faith with the State of Vermont and its people."

There was strong speculation in the Statehouse that Douglas’ change in stance last week was at least partly about bringing Dubie over to the skeptical side of the issue as a growing number of Vermonters don’t like what’s going on at the plant.

Afterward in the next room, Shumlin, one of the Democratic candidates who hopes to replace Douglas, said that Douglas’ call for a change in management at Vermont Yankee won’t solve anything.

— Terri Hallenbeck

Note: For regular readers, we're now breaking up the Tuesday buzz into separate items rather than one long one.

Labels: Mark Snelling; Vermont politics, vermont legislature, Vermont Yankee

The Vermont Chamber of Commerce and Vermont Business Magazine have released their list of top places in Vermont to work. On the list of large companies: Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, which this week has to be kind of a hard place to work. We won't know until March 29 where it ranks first through fifth among winners, but it's on the list.

- Terri Hallenbeck

Labels: Vermont Yankee

Good-enough reform on the move

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., intends to head to Capitol Hill at 5 a.m. today to give himself plenty of time to navigate the still snow-slick streets of Washington, D.C., and arrive before 7 a.m. for another critical vote on the Senate’s health care reform bill.

Two votes — one to approve a package of amendments to the bill and a second to cut off debate on the amended measure — are scheduled for shortly after 7 a.m.

Senate leaders already demonstrated they had the political muscle to win passage of the bill by Christmas Eve when at 1:30 a.m. Monday they mustered all the Democratic senators plus two independents — including Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. — for the first of three procedural votes requiring a three-fifths majority or 60votes.

Leahy and Sanders both said Monday in interviews that they will vote to pass the bill when it comes time to vote — likely at 7 p.m. Thursday.

“I can vote for it,” Leahy said. “It’s not the bill I would have written. I’m extraordinarily disappointed the public option isn’t in there.” Still he argued, “the pluses outweigh the minuses. If we don’t move forward, I don’t think we will see a revamping in myh lifetime.”

Sanders offered similar qualified support. “I am more than aware this bill is nowhere near as strong as it should be. For me, the bottom line is, if we fail now, how many more years will it take Congress to get back to it.” He added, “Is this better than nothing? My answer is that it is.”

Both senators spoke on the Senate floor Monday about the provisions in the package of amendments offered Saturday that they considered critical improvements.

For Sanders, the addition he argues could revolutionalize health care across the country is a $10 billion investment in community health centers and primary care personnel. The funding would expand these health centers, which offer an array of primary and preventive care services, to an additional 10,000 communities, Sanders said. The funding will also pay off school loans for primary care doctors, dentists, nurses and other front-line medical staff who agree to work in medically underserved regions of the country.

“In my view, these two programs are some of the best and most effective public health care programs in the United States of America. And they enjoy widespread — widespread tripartisan support,” he said, noting that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., supported expansion of the community health centers during his presidential campaign.

“My strong hope is that when this bill is finally passed, we will adopt the House language which calls for $14 billion,” Sanders said.

Some critics of the heatlh reform bill have suggested Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s amendment gave waivering senators reasons to vote yes.

Sanders countered that the funding for community health centers and the National Health Service Corps wasn’t pork. Providing Americans greater access to primary care will keep people out of hospital emergency rooms and save money, Sanders argued. “This is a win-win situation.” He added, that while it may pay for two or three more community health center in Vermont, “in many ways it will be better for other states.”

Leahy also won inclusion of some provisions in Reid’s amendment package, most importantly a change in the formula for the distribution of Medicaid funding to Vermont for a six-year period beginning in 2014. This change is expectd to mean an extra $250 million in federal support for Vermont’s subsidized health care program.

“That wouldn’t have affected my vote, whether it was in or not,” Leahy said Monday. The original bill, he argued, penalized Vermont for expanding who was covered by government subsidized health care. Other states would get extra money to expand beginning in 2014, but Vermont wasn’t going to be eligible.

“We were being punished for the doing the right thing,” Leahy said. The change, he said, was a remedy, not an add-on.

Heidi Tringe, deputy chief of staff for Republican Gov. Jim Douglas, cheered the provision Leahy got inserted in the bill. “This is great news. We were very concerned.”

Tringe noted Vermont and Massachusetts were the only two states that weren’t going to receive extra Medicaid money. Now that “inequity” is remedied, Tringe said.

Len Britton, a Republican who plans to challenge Leahy in the 2010 election, criticized the Medicaid formula fix Leahy won, citing it as one of the “cynical sweetheart deals” Senate leadership used to “buy” votes of support for the bill.

“This is political sausage-making at its worst: lots of pork and by-products,” Britton said. “It may taste good going down, but it’s hard to digest later. Unfortunately, this is what we’ve come to expect from Senator Leahy and the professional career politicians in Washington.”

Leahy countered that Republicans sing a different tune when they have the votes. “When they are on the winning side, whatever they put in is good policy.”

— Nancy Remsen

Kill the bill ... or not

Howard Dean, former Vermont governor, presidential candidate and former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, got attention last week for suggesting the Senate version of the health reform bill had been watered down so much it should be killed rather than passed.

Sunday on “Meet the Press,” Dean was singing a different tune. Here’s what he said during a segment with moderator David Gregory.

Dean: “I would certainly not vote for this bill if this were the final product. But there are — the House bill is a — quite a good bill. This bill has improved over the last couple of weeks. I would let this thing go to conference committee and let’s see if we can fix it some more ... .”

Gregory pressed again later in the interview.

“All right. But, Governor, my, my question was without the public option, is your position say no to the bill?” Gregory asked.

Dean said, “My position is let’s see what they add to this bill and make it work. If they can make it work without a public option, I’m all ears. I don’t think that’s possible.”

So how do you think Dean would have voted on the procedural vote that took place in the wee hours of Monday morning had he been a senator? Would he have buckled to pressure from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to get something passed, even something with imperfections, or been hard-nosed about needing a government-sponsored insurance option?

— Nancy Remsen

Rep. Trombley dies at 57

Rep. Ira Trombley, the mustachioed Democrat from Grand Isle who always seemed to be in good cheer, died suddenly Sunday. He was 57.

Trombley had been out of the Statehouse much of last session with an infected foot, but Rep. Mitzi Johnson, D-South Hero, said he appeared healthy of late, had lost weight and was looking forward to the upcoming legislative session.

As the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force pointed out, Trombley went to the Statehouse in a wheelchair to cast his vote for same-sex marriage this year. He also followed meetings of the Health Care Committee, on which he most recently served, via telephone.

Johnson said Trombley likely died of natural causes — a family member returned home from Christmas shopping and found him unresponsive. “It’s an awful shock because he had been doing so well,” said Johnson, who was elected to the Legislature along with Trombley in 2002.

Trombley was known for his involvement in all kinds of Grand Isle community groups, Johnson said. “He had sort of mastered the art of being in two places at once,” she said. “He really loved this job.”

His connections with people went beyond physically attending events, though. “He was Dr. Postcard,” Johnson said, sending notes to people in and out of his district to thank them for writing letters to the editor of newspapers or congratulate them on a new job.

Trombley is survived by his wife, two sons, a daughter and grandchildren. A service will likely be held after the new year, Johnson said.

Gov. Jim Douglas will appoint someone to fill Trombley’s House seat.

— Terri Hallenbeck

VY’s many subplots

Last Thursday, a day before Entergy Corp. was due to reveal how much it is offering to charge Vermont utilities for Vermont Yankee power, Vermont Public Interest Research Group announced it would be joined by a handful of business leaders for a news conference Monday to react to the offer.

How did they know what their reaction would be before the deal was out? They didn’t need to know what the price was to know how they felt about it.

Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s, conceded Monday there was no price VY would offer that he’d be happy with. “Even if the price was competitive, the reality is that there are alternatives that can produce the power more safely at just as reasonable a rate with more Vermont jobs,” he said.

Let’s just be clear, then. This group was using the price offer as the reason for holding a news conference, but the price offer was irrelevant to how they feel about the plant.

Likewise, the price offer has not changed how John O’Kane feels about Vermont Yankee’s future. O’Kane, government affairs director for IBM Corp. in Essex Junction, disagrees with Cohen that alternatives to VY are just as good. He wants the Legislature to vote, giving the state Public Service Board permission to decide whether to grant the plant another 20 years of life.

Even though Entergy’s 6.1-cents/kilowatt hour price offer is one that Vermont’s largest utilities have rejected, O’Kane argues that it sets enough of a baseline that the Legislature should turn the decision over to the board. “The Legislature is not a good instrument for handling highly technical negotiations with a company,” he said.

OK, so are we any farther along in the tale of Vermont Yankee’s future than we were before Friday’s price offer? Hard to say. This story has more complex subplots than a Tom Clancy novel and figuring out which one holds the final clue is not easy.

Entergy, in outlining the offer Friday, argued that the 2012 starting price of 6.1 cents, though it is above market rates today, is below projected market rates. With thanks to Dave Lamont at the state Public Service Department, here’s how Entergy’s offer compares to a market price forecast done for the state last year.

2012: Entergy 6.1 cents/forecast 7.4 cents
2013: Entergy 6.3/forecast 7.6
2014: Entergy 6.4/forecast 7.8
2015: Entergy 6.6/forecast 8.1
2016: Entergy 6.8/forecast 8.4
2017: Entergy 7.0/ forecast 8.8

Central Vermont Public Service Board Chief Executive Office Robert Young said Friday that that forecast of market rates is one among several and that others show lower prices. Because, of course, nothing is simple when it comes to this topic.

— Terri Hallenbeck

Labels: Rep. Ira Trombley, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Patrick Leahy, Vermont Yankee

Vermont Yankee owner Entergy Corp. announced Friday that it plans to offer the states largest utilities power at a starting price of 6.1 cents per kilowatt if the nuclear power plant is allowed to continue operating after 2012.

The new offer, referred to a in filing Friday afternoon with the state Public Service Board, would replace part of a revenue sharing agreement the power plant has with the utilities that would give the utilities a share in the sale of power above a certain price.

Entergy argues that the 6.1 percent price, which would increase annually by a specified index, is below projected market prices, though it is above current market prices. Under the utilities current contract with Entergy, they pay 4.2 cents/kwh, a price all the players expected would increase under a new contract.

Entergy contends the new agreement would have a $500 million benefit to Vermont ratepayers, far more than the value of the revenue sharing agreement.

The offer would be for 115 megawatts of power, half of what the utilities buy from Entergy now. The utilities have said they plan to buy less nuclear power in the coming years.

More on this for the low, low price of 75 cents in your morning paper.

- Terri Hallenbeck

Labels: vermont politics, Vermont Yankee