"Scribblings" - An Occasional Newsletter from the Legislature
By Rep. Thomas F. Koch, Barre Town

"The Entergy/Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant in Vernon has been in the news a lot recently, and most of the news is not good, either politically or technologically.

The basic facts are simple but significant. Built in 1964, Vermont Yankee provides nearly one-third of Vermont’s electrical power, and it provides it at roughly four cents per kilowatt-hour. That’s a lot of power at a very cheap price, compared to the current market price of power. The plant was sold in 2002 to Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, a private company based in New Orleans. The plant’s operating license is due to expire in 2012, which means that we will lose the benefit of that base power (which would then have to be purchased "from the grid" at market prices), unless the operating license is renewed. Entergy has signaled its intention to apply for a 20-year license renewal, which would need approval of both the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Vermont legislature. Once the plant’s operating license finally expires, whether in 2012 or 2032, or at some other time, the plant will have to be safely dismantled, at a cost presently estimated to be $893,000,000.00.

There are additional facts that are not so simple, but equally significant:

• Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (ENVY) maintains a fund intended to be used for the eventual decommissioning; there is presently about $425 million in that fund.
  
  
• Entergy Corporation, ENVY’s parent corporation, is obligated to guarantee up to $60 million of the decommissioning costs, in addition to whatever is available in the decommissioning fund.
  
  
• The fund is expected to grow, as is any investment, prior to the time it is needed. The rate of growth is subject to dispute; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows a company to assume a growth rate of 2% per annum, and allows larger assumptions if a company applies for and receives permission for a greater assumption. ENVY has not sought such permission.
  
  
• Last year, a cooling tower at Vermont Yankee suddenly collapsed, raising valid questions about the condition and safety of the plant and whether its license should be renewed.
  
  
• In January, 2008, ENVY filed a petition with Vermont’s Public Service Board seeking permission to transfer ownership of the Vermont Yankee plant to another corporation, NewCo.
  
  
• In April, the legislature passed a bill requiring that, as a condition of approval of the petition to transfer ownership, ENVY would be required to assure "that the nuclear plant’s decommissioning fund and other funds and financial guarantees available solely for the purpose of decommissioning are adequate to pay for complete and immediate decommissioning at the time of the acquisition…." The governor vetoed the bill, and no attempt to override the veto was made.
  
  
• In May, the legislature passed, and the governor signed, a bill establishing a commission to make an independent safety assessment of the ENVY plant and to report back to the legislature next year.
  
  
• This month, additional problems with cooling towers surfaced, raising new questions about the safety of the plant.

• The base electric block of power obtained from Vermont Yankee is extremely important to Vermont, and I am inclined to vote to authorize extension of Vermont Yankee’s operating license for an additional 20 years, provided that all responsible safety inspections and analyses indicate that the plant can be safely and reliably operated during that time period. The recent cooling tower problems, leaks, and other manifestations of age give rise to serious concern in this regard.
  
  
• We should not kid ourselves. The price of energy from Vermont Yankee after 2012 will be more than four cents per Kw/h. Price negotiations will have to be part of the re-licensing process, and those negotiations will be long and difficult.
  
  
• The governor was right to veto S. 373. Although concerns about the adequacy of the decommissioning fund are legitimate, the bill sought to change the applicable law after a docket had already been opened before the Public Service Board. One of the fundamental rules of due process is that the rules of the "game" remain the same after the game has begun. Had S. 373 been passed before the case in front of the PSB had begun, I would probably have had a different view of the bill.
  
  
• Notwithstanding the fact that S. 373 did not become law, the PSB still has to find that the transfer of ownership to a new entity is "in the public good." Without that finding, the transfer cannot take place. In fulfilling its responsibility to make that general determination, I would not be surprised if the PSB gives serious consideration to the issue of decommissioning and the ability of the new entity to decommission the plant safely and successfully.
  
  
• I am particularly concerned that there is very little discussion from either pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear advocates about one major factor regarding decommissioning—its ultimate cost. While the cost is presently estimated at $893 million, the discussion seems centered around the ability of the fund to grow the present $425 million to $893 million by the time it is needed for decommissioning. But by that time, the amount needed will no doubt be greater than $893 million—how much greater is probably more a matter of speculation than science, but it will certainly be more. There seems to be little attention being given to that vital fact.
  
  
• In all of this, I believe that nuclear power does have a future. Much of Europe, including France and Sweden, generate their electricity predominantly from nuclear plants, using technology that is far different from the technology used to construct Vermont Yankee.
  
  
• There are those who are simply anti-nuclear, under any circumstances. They would close down Vermont Yankee immediately, without any plan to replace the power it generates, except to purchase it on the grid from coal-fired generating plants in the Midwest. Some of these voices are reflected in the legislature, including some of the legislative leadership. I believe this approach is neither helpful nor responsible.
  
  
• And finally, one cannot forget the need for alternative sources of power—wind, solar, biomass, and hydro. While they also have their limitations and problems, they have a role, together with nuclear power, in providing a safe, secure, reliable, and affordable source of electrical power for Vermonters for years to come.

Salmon for Auditor: Two years ago, Tom Salmon, Democratic candidate for State Auditor and son of the former governor, unseated my longtime friend, Randy Brock, winning the race by a mere 102 votes. Randy had done an excellent job as Auditor, repairing the damage done by his predecessor, and restoring the non-partisan role that the office demands. I felt that Randy deserved re-election, and I supported him. The voters decided otherwise.

In the past two years, Tom Salmon has proven to be just as fair, non-partisan, and forthright as his predecessor. He has testified several times before my committee, and he has shown himself to be independent and not driven by partisan political agendas. He deserves to be re-elected. At this writing, I am not aware whether any Republican has filed to oppose him,¹ but I will support Tom Salmon simply because he has done an outstanding job, and very simply, he has earned my support, respect, and confidence.

Tom has recently been called to active duty for service in Afghanistan, and he will not be able to campaign for re-election, nor will he actually be able to serve as Auditor for the first several months of his new term. In my view, this should not weigh against his eligibility for re-election. Any other member of the National Guard called to active duty is eligible for a leave of absence from regular employment and expects to have his or her job waiting upon return; it should not be any different for Tom Salmon because he has stepped forward to serve his country.

¹This issue of "Scribblings" was written while I was at Boy Scout camp last week, where the lack of access to e-mail made it impossible for me to send it out at that time. Upon returning, I learned that no Republican had, in fact, filed a petition to run for Auditor. That fact was not known to me when I wrote this and would not have made any difference in what I wrote. I would now urge Republicans to write in Tom Salmon’s name for the office of Auditor in the September primary, giving him the nomination of the Republican party in addition to the Democratic party.