Editor’s note: This opinion piece is by William N. Reardon, an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 300 member who works at Vermont Yankee and is chairman of the plant’s collective bargaining unit.
Enough is enough. With Vermont’s economy on the canvas and hard working men and women worried about their jobs and struggling to pay the monthly bills, along come our elected Senators.
At the flick of a switch they voted to close Vermont Yankee and put more than 1,288 people out of work, the total number of jobs created in Vermont by Vermont Yankee according to an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 300-commissioned study. This also reduces purchasing power by $78.5 million annually, negatively impacting many others in Vermont.
There is lost revenue from property and payroll taxes along with close to a million dollars in community contributions. The vote also passes on to Vermonters higher electric prices and gives the state’s business reputation a black eye, keeping more companies at bay and chasing more in-state businesses away.
Leading this charge is the self proclaimed voice of the working people — the now Senator and want-to-be governor Shumlin who is using Vermont Yankee as a distraction from his abysmal record of constituent service in Windham County.
At its heart, the measure is political irresponsibility.
All that seems to matters is that they want the plant closed so they can have a trophy to peddle to anti-nuclear extremists who have long agitated for the plant to close. If Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, and God Almighty himself testified that the plant was safe and well run the anti-nuclear crowd still wouldn’t believe it.
Leading this charge is the self proclaimed voice of the working people — the now Senator and want-to-be governor Shumlin who is using Vermont Yankee as a distraction from his abysmal record of constituent service in Windham County, home of the plant. Windham County is arguably the most depressed region of the state. Shumlin is willing to put many of his constituents out of work to join a long list of others who are out of work in the County.
Indeed, the IBEW study commissioned about Vermont Yankee and prepared by Northern Economic Consulting notes, “Job growth in Windham County has lagged that of the state in nine of the last ten years. Only in 1999 did Windham County post a job gain. Windham County has lost jobs every year since 1999.”
It goes on, “From 1999 to 2009 employment in the state grew by 5.3 percent, a gain of 15,236 jobs. During that 10-year period jobs decreased in Windham County by 1,636, a 6.8 percent decline. Then, when the recession hit in 2008 and 2009, Windham County employers continued to shed jobs, and at a faster rate than employers across the state.”
Where has Senator been while these jobs were lost and sent out of state? Apparently he has abdicated fighting for jobs in Windham County and for his constituents, or just was never that good at it. Perhaps the Senator realized he could not stem the job flow impacting his constituents so he decided to contribute to it by championing the closure of Vermont Yankee.
In any case, enough is enough.
All of Vermont deserves better representatives then those who will trash Vermont’s economy through a reckless, fast-tracked, self-serving call to close Vermont Yankee. And the rest of Vermont beware: the 800 workers in Vermont who just got notice their jobs are gone and the 1,288 workers associated with Vermont Yankee are only the beginning.
It’s not Vermont Yankee and more than 1,200 other Vermonters that should be retired. It’s the Senators who elected to follow Shumlin’s political agenda and stick their head in the sand and ignore the economic effects of closing the plant while giving the blue collar worker the moon.
Mr. Reardon
With respect, some of your figures are not accurate. Your consultant did not account for the fact that 60% of VY workers live in other states. As a result, some of the key findings to which you refer are mistaken.
For example, you said “At the flick of a switch they voted to close Vermont Yankee and put more than 1,288 people out of work, the total number of jobs created in Vermont.”
That assumes all the jobs are in VT. Since 60% are not, most of the jobs (purportedly) created by the multiplier effect are not in VT. And the same is true for the purchasing power figure, which is also much much lower than you cited. [Note: The model counts direct, indirect, and induced economic activity. If a VY worker lives in NH and spends most of his or her money there then the benefit is not in VT.]
Moreover, the estimates of lost revenue are mistaken as well. While the VY workers pay income tax in VT, those who live in NH & MA do not pay municipal or statewide education taxes in VT.
You also said “The vote also passes on to Vermonters higher electric prices and gives the state’s business reputation a black eye, keeping more companies at bay and chasing more in-state businesses away.”
As I’m sure you know, Entergy’s proposal included a 42% increase in the cost per kWh, so we would have paid higher rates even if the plant stayed open. Furthermore, the proposed rate is comparable to those in the rest of the New England power pool. So your claim about higher prices is inaccurate.
As for your suggestion that the VY closure will keep “more companies at bay and chasing more in-state businesses away”, there is absolutely no evidence to support this. For the vast majority of businesses, electric costs are quite modest. According to the Economic Census, it’s about 1.5% of revenues for manufacturers, and much less for service industries. Thus, even if electric costs increased by 10%, it means that the cost would grow from 1.5% of revenues to 1.65% of revenues. That is not likely to force any business to leave or keep any business away.
Finally, I am very sympathetic to your situation but long-term energy policy should not be based solely on short-term job impacts. With a new governor, we can build up the other sectors (efficiency & renewables) and create new jobs for some, if not all, of your union brothers & sisters.
Indeed, I would be happy to pay a small lines charge to fund a job transition package to help with early retirement buyouts and focused retraining. Frankly, it should have been part of the decommissioning fund all along.
In any case, your anger is understandable but is misplaced. I’m convinced that the majority of Vermonters do NOT want VY as part of our energy future. I’m equally certain that most Vermonters appreciate the fact that VY workers are on the line and would be happy to help if asked. So why not dial down the rhetoric and work for a better outcome?
Thanks Doug.
As someone that supports labor and knows what it is like to have a job pulled out from underneath them, it has been hard to watch divisions within the working people over this, but your stats are right on. And Entergy probably would have done it anyway if the vote had gone their way, when they would have sold off the plant to get rid of it and take their money and run before it was too late.
Mr. Reardon, with all due respect, your attempt to pin the lack of job growth in Windham County on Sen. Shumlin undercuts your argument that the plant is economically beneficial.
If this old plant now leaking tritium and now cesium is such an economic boon to the region wouldn’t it stand to reason that Windham County would have been fairing better over the past decade?
The fact is that there are many factors that impact job growth and perception is one of them. How many businesses have failed for no other reason than the general public doesn’t perceive it to be good?
This is what has happened to the business that employs you, Mr. Reardon. The majority of Vermonters have come to the same place as Sen. Shumlin. They have watched as the owners of the plant emphatically told us they did not have underground pipes that could ever leak tritium. They have watched as these pipes are now leaking. They have watched the response of the owners of the plant and how they, and regulators, have dealt with this situation.
None of what we have seen has given us comfort or confidence that the owners of the plant, or the regulators, care one bit about Vermont; or frankly for you and the other workers.
It was Sen. Shumlin who, in the end, had the courage to stand up and state the obvious, which is the plant is too old to continue to be our best, most reliable source of in-state energy moving forward for the next 20 years.
Too often we see politicians waiver and flip flop on issues. We’ve seen that with many on this issue; first demanding a vote and then, once the truth about the plant was discovered, demanding that we not vote. Sen. Shumlin never waivered. He knew that our best shot at true, positive economic growth in the energy field could only happen if we broke our ties with the plant that has single handedly nearly ruined the Vermont brand in only six weeks.
This is tough, because no one wants to see anyone lose their job, but those who depend on the Vermont brand cannot afford to have this plant, operated by this highly untrustworthy company, in our state.
And the one thing that I keep saying is this:
We’ve known for 40 years that VY was going to be shut down in 2012. Why wasn’t the IBEW (among others) preparing for that inexorable eventuality?
And if, against the cast majority of The People’s wishes, VY were to operate for another 20 years, what would be the IBEW’s position then? Keep it open forever just to save jobs?
I am a Union man, and I am saddened that the IBEW is being so short-sighted about VY.
Bill,the owners and the employees had fourty years to plan for this. What did they do to get ready?
If the plant is relicensed will you be making the same arguement twenty years from now?
It is time to move on and create new jobs building renewable sources. Let’s urge the Vt. legislature to now seriously take up that discussion.
Vermont must conduct a rational discussion regarding how it will supply electrical power to Vermont consumers in the future. Will power be generated within the state, or purchased from out-of-state suppliers? Who will own power generating facilities within Vermont? What regulations will be imposed on in-state producers? Who will oversee safety concerns regarding any power generating facility to be constructed? Will performance bonds be required of private entities producing power?
Obviously, the issues before Vermonters are more complex than simply whether one power generating facility will receive a license extension, even though that is a very important issue. Widen the debate and make intelligent plans to secure adequate and safe power generating facilities for Vermont’s future.
Get over it!
It’s no different than all the jobs lost in Springfield when all the machine shops closed down there. A hard fact of life. But, the people of Springfield dealt with it. The people in the Vernon area can too.
It’s amazing to me that some poeple want to sacrifice the safety of all of us for a job. Rediculous.