Editor’s note: This opinion was written by Guy Page, the communications director of Vermont Energy Partnership, a trade association that includes Entergy Corporation, which owns Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant.
Today, the need for sound thinking about Vermont Yankee and our state’s long-term energy planning is more critical than ever. Vermont’s energy future depends on careful review of relevant facts. We must use realistic environmental and economic scenarios. Allowing politics and emotion to impact the ongoing energy debate will only hamper our efforts to do what is best for Vermont.
The recent tritium findings do not change the fact that safety is the supreme priority. But state and federal experts have noted that the levels of tritium do not pose any threat to public health. Furthermore, state and federal inspectors have declared the plant is safe and reliable to operate for another 20 year license period.
Without low-carbon, instate Vermont Yankee, the environmental impact of future electricity sources is up in the air, both figuratively and literally. We cannot replace the 270 megawatts from Vermont Yankee with in-state renewable sources by 2012. Unless Vermont Yankee is relicensed, our most likely power source will be high-carbon, high-sulfur power produced out-of-state at a price that will fluctuate with market prices. This will almost certainly be more costly to Vermont homeowners and businesses. And no matter how Vermont Yankee is replaced, its loss would cost Vermont an estimated 1,300 Vermont jobs (Richard Heaps, 2009 report).
Neither our environment nor our economy can afford the tunnel vision prompted by politics and emotion. When Vermont Yankee and our state utilities produce a proposed power purchase, policymakers must evaluate it reasonably, factually, and with an eye to our state’s overall environmental and economic welfare.
