Editor’s note: This commentary is by George Clain, president of the IBEW Local 300.
As Entergy scrambles to find and fix the source of tritium contamination at Vermont Yankee, another major, substantive issue is being all but ignored: the plant’s economic impact to Vermont. The Legislature should carefully evaluate both matters as it weighs in on the plant’s future.
Regarding tritium, with more than 180 workers at Vermont Yankee, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 300 takes a backseat to no one in demanding that the plant be operated safely. If we had any doubt about the plant’s safety, our workers would not be there. Many of our members live close to the plant as well, a testament to their confidence in its safe operation.
While there are no indications that the tritium poses a health or safety threat, Entergy management must be held to the highest standards to address this problem as soon as possible. This especially includes its breached trust with Vermonters.
It’s disappointing that some of Vermont Yankee’s political opponents are trying to seize on the emotionalism about the current crisis to close the plant.
What is also disappointing, however, is that some of Vermont Yankee’s political opponents are trying to seize on the emotionalism about the current crisis to close the plant. Even if the tritium problem were completely fixed tomorrow they would still want the plant closed, despite the massive, long-term economic damage this would do to Vermont’s economy.
And massive economic damage it would be in terms of lost jobs, disposable income, and tax revenues. The IBEW recently retained Vermont economist Richard Heaps to dispassionately and scientifically evaluate these impacts, using 2009 data.
The study found that the total number of jobs created in Vermont by Vermont Yankee is 1,288. This includes 670 jobs at the plant and an additional 618 that are created in Vermont as a direct result of the plant’s operation. The jobs are in many sectors including construction, retail, trade, and professional services.
These 1,288 jobs have an annual payroll of $93.3 million, and as a result Vermonters’ disposable income was $78.5 million higher in 2009 than it otherwise would have been.
These jobs would be all but impossible to replace, and the consequences of losing them would be especially stark in southern Vermont. Heaps’ report 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.”
The jobs and income are also important for providing taxes for government services. Vermont Yankee and the economic activity which is facilitated throughout the state as a result of the plant’s operation resulted in $7.67 million in General Funds taxes in 2009 and $4.94 million in Education Fund taxes, which covers the cost of educating 352 students.
When assessing Vermont Yankee’s future, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the sole body with the legal authority and in-house expertise to determine if the plant is safe to be operated. While state legislators are deciding about Vermont’s energy future they have a duty to study and evaluate the economic importance of Vermont Yankee. To do otherwise would be to violate the trust that Vermonters’ place in elected officials to make informed, dispassionate decisions.
Vermonters deserve prompt action from Entergy and they deserve calm, informative deliberations by the Legislature. There is too much at stake for either party to do otherwise.
