Former Mr. Gilbert Student Stresses What He Taught Her

[Henry]

Hi Mr. Gilbert,
 
As your former student, I remember having to write papers for you that were based on reason and logic.  You forced us to base our opinions on fact and not emotion.  I know you have voted for the VY Decommissioning fund bill on a couple of different occasions already, but I hope that you will listen to what I have to say re: this bill and why I think it is not good policy for the State of Vermont.
 
First, there are already federal mechanisms in place to ensure that the decommissioning fund will reach the appropriate levels.  This bill is designed as an end run to force the closure of VY.  Why, because if you force Entergy to put these funds together in this short timeframe they will simply close down the plant now.  And guess what, they will not have the decommissioning funds there then either.  Additonally there will be the loss of several hundred jobs----and they have excellent pay and benefits.  The economic costs will be felt around the state with the loss of income taxes, reasonable prices for power, and an absolutely crushing blow to Windham County.
 
Second, I have major concerns about the economic future of Vermont without sufficient sources of reasonably priced power in place to support and entice companys to do business in our beautiful state.  Additionally, because there are no power contracts in place at this time the state of Vermont will be forced into a volatile spot market to purchase nearly one third of their power.  One of the largest sections of our VT population is senior citizens, the volatility of the power market on them will make the recent fuel oil issues seem like a piece of cake.  It is going to take a significant amount of time, permitting and investment for Vermont to find replacement power for VY.  It can and should be done, but it will take the full 20 years for that to happen.
 
Third, over and over again I have heard legislators and pundits say that the 40 year license of VY was based on the plants useful life and that it should not be extended.  The 40 year license term was set because of the financing arrangements for the building of the plants.  It was decided that financing terms would only go out 40 years.  Each nuclear plant in the US undergoes extensive overhauls and maintenance every 18 months.  With proper maintenance and repairs the plant is safe to operate another 20 years.  The truth is that the anti nuclear activists have lost on the safety issues and now the approach is to make it so financially unpleasant for Entergy that the plant closes in spite of these facts.
 
Fourth, if you are voting for this bill because you are completely anti-nuclear in your philosophy then vote for its closure next year when the legislature should finally be voting on this issue.  However, if you like to think that you are open and willing to consider that there might be a place in VT's power mix for nuclear energy during the next several years---until other renewable sources are in place, I urge you to vote against H436.
 
I realize it is tough to vote against your party, but I know you as someone of integrity and that is why I have taken the time to send this note to you.  What happens with the vote on H436 is going to have a huge effect on all Vermonters.  I know you will give your vote very careful consideration.
 
Take care,
Lynn (Raymond) Empey

[edakrupp]

Very well written. I am glad to see you are using what you learned in school. I agree with you, and I am a democrat. Nuclear power is an important part of the big power picture. There is nothing 'evil' about it. Supplemented and supported with renewable energies gives us a balanced predictable power base to feed from, with keeping costs down. Ever hear of don't throw the baby out with the bath water, well thats what I feel if they are going to be doing if they shut this plant down. It works, has been dependable for years and with proper maintenance it should last long enough for us to be able to replace it with a better technology, once we have developed it. I know my sentiments are not popular, however it is important to let out legislators to hear our voices, because as a group, perhaps we can be heard.

[Gary Gilbert]

   H.436 is the bill that deals with the Entergy Vermont Yankee decommissioning funds in that it attempts to make the fund adequate and accessible when it is needed.  ENVY has only the Vermont plant as an asset. Its parent company is Entergy Corp. the second largest nuclear generation company in the country having profits of over a billion dollars a year. It is ENVY that is responsible for the cleanup. There is fear on the part of some citizens, that ENVY or any other company that has similar weak assets will not have the financial ability to decommission the plant. They see it as being similar to Adelphia Cable not willing to make the investment necessary to serve all parts of Vermont as they promised when they got the contract. Or like Fairpoint when Verizon unloaded their business to this less well financed company and left us with much poorer service.
   Others are concerned with the potential costs of energy, the loss of quality jobs, and the resulting economic impact on that part of the state. They feel that this bill, in its three different forms will force the plant to close. Workers concerned that the plant will not do updates that are planned and necessary for the plant to run for many more years  and will affect electricians, carpenters and other trades at a time when the construction industry is at a low spot.
    I have heard from some businesses that do not want to risk higher energy costs even though no offer of rates has been coming from ENVY to Vermont electrical utilities. There is the expectation that rates will go up in any new contract. I spent some time with electric company representatives and they are not taking a position as to ENVY although Vermont Energy Partners (lobbyists) are.  The Vt. Electrical companies want to pay  less than market rates for a long term contract; that is they do not want a long term contract at market rates because it would limit their options to purchase less nuclear and more of other fuels to diversity their portfolio. They are negotiating with NY Hydro and Quebec Hydro among others. Thus they want to buy less from ENVY. ENVY wants to sell less to Vt. to be able to have more available to sell at the then current rate on the spot market. Their sales represent 30 % of the Vt. market but only 2% of the New England grid which provides our power when ENVY is off line. Their greatest profit is sales outside of Vt.which was made possible by their recent upgrade. But they need to give Vt either a reasonable rate or Vt companies a profit share on sales in Vt not in other states.
   Some feel that to require ENVY to have enough resources on hand to shut down in 2012 will cause rates to increase. Others, that the obligation is there already and would have been better funded if the company had made payments into the decommissioning fund. ENVY has made no payments since taking ownership. Some believe that requiring payments into the fund will encourage ENVY to negotiate seriously and give a reasonable contract to Vt. companies. This could mean a low rate with cola increases or a high and low increase or decrease relative to market price. In any event, we do not want the plant to be in safe-store for 60 years paying no taxes and having no employees if decommissioning can be assured and the plant safe to operate. The best way for ENVY to demonstrate their value to the state would to have contracts with Vermont utilities. They have not done that.
   The most recent version, past on Wednesday by the House altered the Senate proposal. It walked a line among all the concerns described above. The Senate version used the phrase “complete and immediate decommissioning” and had the effect of excluding SAFSTOR and would require on transfer of control, a guarantee that the decommissioning fund would be guaranteed against bankruptcy. The version that was passed was different as it recognized the need for returning the site to a green field when it was no longer in operation and the need to permit the company to have dependable lead time in making decisions. The bill had the following components:
1) “As soon as technically possible” was used because some elements of decommissioning may not be directly under control of ENVY. Federal policies may make it impossible for them to deal with some of the disassembly of the plant. This wiggle room is necessary.
2) “On and after March 22, 2012, “: this date is after the scheduled closing date. It is used instead of the Senates term – immediately-
3) “A decommissioning trust shall be funded by cash or a financial instrument or both… Such an instrument may include a guarantee by a parent corporation.” This allows the parent company to simply promise to take care of the decommissioning when required and does not require that they  place any money into the fund at any time.
   The bottom line is that some see this as the first step in a shut down. Others see it as the first step in getting an energy price and allow our electrical utilities to do serious shopping. This bill protects against a “what if” situation. If the parent company is committed to restore the site, the company provides power at a good rate, and the plant is re-licensed the bill has no substantive effect and jobs will be saved.

[Henry]

For those of you that are interested in hearing the truth, you might want to read my son-in-law, Mike Empey's response to Mr. Gilbert's note - Mike is very well informed.  It seems too bad to see people spread erroneous information, especially in their information to our representatives - Gary, I hope you read this and don't get duped by those feeding you bad information:

"My name is Michael Empey and I am married to Mr. Gilbert’s former student Lynn Raymond-Empey and I have worked at Vermont Yankee for the past 15 years.  Prior to coming to VY I was a civilian employee of the US Navy overseeing the refuel and overhaul of nuclear reactors aboard submarines and aircraft carriers.  We came to work at VY to be closer to our families and raise our own family, we have 2 sons, and are active members of our community serving on school and other boards and as a volunteer firefighter.  I have always heard my wife talk of Mr. Gilbert in glowing terms and we do not believe he is intentionally spreading false information but much of what he has put in this forum is incorrect and it is clear he does not fully understand the situation around the decommissioning bill.

Vermont Yankee sometimes referred to as Entergy North Vermont Yankee or ENVY is in fact owned by the Entergy Co of New Orleans.  The Entergy company is currently responsible for the decommissioning of Vermont Yankee when it ceases operation as its owner.  Entergy also owns and operates 10 other nuclear power stations, and numerous oil, gas, and coal fired power plants.  Entergy also owns and operates gas distribution and power distribution companies in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.   As required by federal law and under the regulation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Entergy and all other nuclear plant operators collect as part of the price of power they sell a small fee (pennies on the kilowatt) that goes into the decommissioning fund.  The referral to “cleanup” that runs throughout Mr. Gilbert’s letter is a piece of rhetoric often used in protest materials and speeches of anti-nuclear groups.

Under the federal law the nuclear plants establish a fund to hold the collected decommissioning funds and invest it in approved securities to collect additional interest to build-up the funds to ultimately pay to perform the decommissioning.  There is no requirement under the existing laws to immediately decommission a nuclear plant when it ceases operation there are a number of options including something called SAFSTOR which allows the ultimate decommissioning to be delayed for up to 60 years.  Some anti-nuclear types are painting this option as some sort of scheme to avoid paying or performing the decommissioning.  Again this is regulated by the NRC and cannot simply be chosen by a plant but must be applied for and approved by the NRC.  Part of that approval evaluates the finances.

The oft ignored benefit of the SAFSTOR option is the increased safety benefit in that 60 years of safe layup of the plant allows for the decay of the major radioactive elements present in the piping and plant systems.  Allowing the decay off of the bulk of radioactive Cobalt 60 and Tritium in turn makes the final decommissioning safer and less costly.  The reactor and spent fuel pools are off loaded into dry cask storage at the start and are not simply left during SAFSTOR, the plant continues to be maintained, guarded, and monitored throughout the process.
 
Trying to make a case comparing the Adelphia cable situation to this situation is somewhat humorous in that the state alone handled that and there was no agency like the NRC riding heard on Adelphia.  The issue of the negotiation of power purchase agreement (a favorable pricing guarantee if a license extension is granted) between ENVY and the Vermont electricity providers is being used in this argument on the decommissioning funds as a smoke screen and a distracter from the issue.  Decommissioning and a power purchase agreement are unrelated except that if VY does not get a license extension a power purchase agreement would be moot since Vermonters will be thrown to the wolves of the open market to get power, and would no longer be paying anything towards decommissioning.

ENVY/Entergy made a deal when it bought the plant to provide a very favorable price to VT utilities which believe it or not has provided a tremendous savings to Vermonters and probably has been material to keeping some companies like IBM from leaving altogether.  This deal went through the end of the original plant license, in addition Entergy made a second deal to provide a profit sharing with the state for money it is making as a result of a power up-rate that has allowed it to sell more power.  Now VT utilities are trying to negotiate to keep both these lucrative benefits which is understandable.

While these business negotiations have been taking place the legislature has been withholding approval of the VY’s relicensing/license extension that every other agency has already agreed to and is trying to force a complete top off decommissioning fund contrary to federal law.  This is placing ENVY in a very tenuous position as there is no way to provide favorable rates and also spend millions in early funding of the decommissioning fund.

The bottom line is there is so much uncertainty being created by the legislature and their efforts to force the decommissioning fund top off that Entergy’s business case to continue operating VY is in jeopardy.  ENVY is after all a business and has a plan including numbers that say we can operate if we make xyz but not if it costs us more than abc.  Requiring an early top off may hit the abc number and if it does Vermonters will suffer; starting with the workers at VY who for the most part will be forced to uproot and move on (yes a small number will be kept for decommissioning but not most as most decommissioning work will be done by specialized contractors), the local economy that supports the VY workers, the Vernon tax base, and all Vermonters who get power from VY.  The best case for Vermonters is continue plant operation with a good power purchase agreement allowing the decommissioning funds to continue to accrue through all rate users (not just Vermonters)

As a worker at VY I view the decommissioning top off as a poison pill developed by anti-nuclear groups to make VY appear to be the greedy villain unwilling to pay, what to the uninitiated appears to be, a reasonable request.  However it ignores the process that is already in place and is federal law, creating unnecessary unrecoverable costs upon the plant.  The best thing the legislature could have done with regard to VY in this session would have been to approve the re-licensing contingent upon a favorable power purchase agreement or continued profit sharing.  What they have instead done is add more uncertainty to the lives of thousands of Vermonters by putting good decent paying jobs in peril along with the power costs for all Vermonters."

[mirjo]

I cannot comment, dispute, or agree in any intelligent manner with the decommissioning discussion, however I do have a BURNING question regarding Edakrupp's statement: Nuclear power is an important part of the big power picture. There is nothing 'evil' about it.

Is this really true? I get all of the positives about nuclear energy, my problem with it is the nuclear waste it generates, that we bury somewhere (the last I knew), the water needed for cooling, etc. I think these things out weigh reactor risks in the long haul.

Since we have a panel of experts, can someone explain how this is ok? I have heard that there are new ways of disposing of nuclear waste that are used or being developed in europe, I don't have any idea if this is true, but it certainly isn't something I have seen in the US mainstream media.

I also  believe having/knowing the facts is important. I don't have them necessarily. I have a history of learning about nuclear weapons/the cold war and how destructive nucluear power can be. What I don't have are facts/knowledge that nuclear energy is not destructive in some manner. I can't be supportive of something that I don't have knowledge of.

Who knows what the answer is to this  entire energy mess. No matter what is decided anywhere, someone or something is hurt.

[edakrupp]

As to the waste, well the nuclear energy industry has disposed of 3,000 shipments of used fuel over the past 40 years without injury, fatalaties or environmental damages. Fuel waste is being safely stored in steel lined concrete vaults with water. Long term storage areas are being developed on Yucca mountain out west. The Feds are developing fuel treatment programs that are aimed at reducing the amount of byproducts that use up valuable storage space. They are also in the midddle of researching recycling nuclear fuel technology to take advantage of using the residual energy in used fuel. Nuclear energy, reguardless of whether we support it or not, is part of our reality. Waste is a huge issue, and everyone is concerned about the long term ramifications, however scientists and researchers are doing their best to try to make what we have a safe and viable form of energy. There is fear, and always will be. Neclear energy was intoduced quickly into our society years ago and with it a very short sighted view as to its impact to our culture and environment. But if used correctly, and safely and with respect, like all other forms of energy we can benifit from it. The best we can do to protect our future is to make sure that any other "new" forms of energy are throughly researched (long term and short term) prior to public use.

[mirjo]

I think a lot of the problem is that everyone (gov't etc) is now in a hurry-up panic mode and reacting instead of acting in a sensible manner, because what should have been addressed long ago wasn't. So now we're desperately trying to stem the tide of global warming, as if we (one country) can.

I just fear in this race to be 'lean,clean,and green' ASAP, that the pristine nature of Vt will get ruined and politicians are just going to fight like children ultimately to nobody's benefit in the end. Nothing is going to be researched as it should. I don't know why we're not hearing about the things of which you speak. We should be.

There are other things out there also that we don't ever hear about, like grass pellets as a fuel alternative (home heating) Switch grass is something local farms could grow on non-prime ag land and it can be made into pellets like wood and burned in the same type of stove. I know Shelburne Farms researched this and did a test burn a few years ago. I've never heard anything more about it. I suppose that's a little off topic, but it's all somewhat the same.

Whatever is decided on will hopefully not be a knee-jerk reaction to the current crisis situation. Serious development of better nuclear waste disposal would make me feel a whole lot better. Thanks for your input edakrupp.

[edakrupp]

It's a hard thing. All types of energy impact the environment somehow or other. Critical research is of the utmost importance, and test trial that simulate the long term effects. Unfortunately our growing population continues to stress the resources we have. The best thing in my opinion that we can have a positive effect is to teach, by modeling, our future population on how to use less, waste less, and problem solve more. In that process compromise must be met on all levels. Americans are the biggest users of energy. Perhaps we can wear those jeans a little longer, shower less, walk more, make more homemade foods. Vermonters have always been ahead of the curve whan it comes to awareness. Perhaps it's that Yankee Frugality?! But every choice we make during the day has an impact.  Education is key.