In April, Entergy Corp., the Louisiana-based owner of Vermont Yankee, asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to change its decommissioning fund plan. Entergy wanted the commission to let it drop a $40 million backup guarantee for the cost of decommissioning the Vernon plant. Entergy argued it could make up the difference over its 20 years of extended operation (through March 2032), which was approved by the commission last spring.
On Wednesday, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission rejected Entergy’s request because of “uncertainty surrounding the plant’s future.”
“Cancellation of the guarantee at this time would be premature,” James Kim, project manager for the commission wrote.
The commission cites “external factors” for the decision, including the civil court case, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee v. Shumlin. If Entergy is forced to shut down the plant by March 21, 2012, as originally scheduled, the commission says the “anticipated earnings during the renewal period would not be realized.”
Critics of Entergy, including Gov. Peter Shumlin, who is named in the lawsuit, quickly seized on the news to pressure the nuclear giant to own up to its financial obligations to the state of Vermont.
“Once again Entergy has tried to avoid taking full responsibility for its actions and sought to cut the state process out of the equation,” Shumlin said in a statement. “I’m deeply concerned that Vermont Yankee doesn’t have the money to decommission the plant, including closing the facility and cleaning up the site, quickly and efficiently when it shuts down on schedule, and I’m grateful that the NRC hasn’t let Entergy off the hook.”
Ray Shadis, of the New England Coalition, interprets the commission’s decision as a way of forcing Entergy’s hand. “It looks like put up and shutdown,” Shadis wrote in an email.
“This I believe is the first federal acknowledgement that Entergy’s Vermont Yankee is still on track for shutdown in March 2012, just eight months from now,” Shadis said.
Shadis alleges that “since Entergy bought the plant in 2002, the company has “contributed nothing to the fund; relying entirely on investment returns to fund its growth.”
Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the commission, said he wouldn’t read too much into the decision. “We’re essentially just saying what we’re saying — it’s premature to cancel the parent company guarantee. We’re simply acknowledging this reality is unresolved,” Sheehan said.
