Editor’s note: This commentary is by Paul Burns, executive director of VPIRG.
Today, Entergy Nuclear released its last, best offer for a future power purchase agreement after many months of fruitless negotiations with the state’s two largest electric utilities. It’s easy to see why even the biggest supporters of the troubled nuclear plant have rejected this deal.
Louisiana-based Entergy is proposing to sell Vermonters about half the power it currently provides at a cost that is at least 45 percent higher. The only people who might think that’s a good deal have already lost their fortunes attempting to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.
Entergy’s proposed scheme would not only significantly raise the price Vermonters are paying for nuclear power, it would also eliminate the Revenue Sharing Agreement that the company has been crowing about for years. Even for Entergy this is a new low. They are proposing to taketh away even before they giveth.
The letter today simply provided more proof that one cannot believe anything that Entergy V.P. Jay Thayer claims or promises. For example, in a December 22, 2008 letter to the Susan Hudson, Clerk of the PSB, Thayer claimed that “Vermonters stand to realize Revenue Sharing Clause benefits of almost $1 billion in nominal dollars over ten years.” (See attached docket filing.)
In today’s letter, Thayer contends that the new deal “is expected to produce approximately $500 million of benefit for Vermont’s ratepayers, far in excess of the benefits likely to be provided by the RSA.” Either the RSA lost more than $500 million worth of value in less than a year or Thayer is having trouble sticking to his own version of the truth.
If Thayer thinks he can pull this one over on Vermont legislators he must take them for fools. They are not and I think he’ll come to realize that very soon.
Paul Burns is the executive director of VPIRG/VPIREF.
For years we’ve been listening to the right (a.k.a. cons) tell us what a great deal nuclear power from the Vernon, VT plant is. A 45% increase in anything is a bad deal (okay, maybe it’s a good salary increase, but in this day and age, you have to be a Fortune 500 CEO to garner that kind of favor), not to mention that this company (pick a nom du jour-it seems to be constantly changing) seems determined to spin itself off into so many subsidiaries that when it comes time to file a lawsuit, there will be such a thick shell around it that all resources will be exhausted before we can get a meaningful settlement from the company that actually is responsible for operating this sham.
Interesting testimony. It would seem the argument around this matter centers more on the need to negotiate favorable terms – $61/MWh threshold does seem like a fairly high bar before additional revenue sharing benefits kick in (given energy market conditions today).