Business & Economy

Vermont Yankee: Where activists, lawyers and politicians failed, the market succeeded

Editor’s note: Andrew Stein contributed to this report.

The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant has been the subject of one of the longest and most intensive anti-nuke campaigns in the region. Even before the plant was constructed on the banks of the Connecticut River in 1972, anti-nuclear activists demonstrated against Vermont Yankee with a fervor that bordered on religious conviction.

Anti-nuke groups formed — the New England Coalition, Citizens Awareness Network, Shut It Down Affinity Group and the Safe and Green Campaign — and environmental organizations like VPIRG, the Vermont Natural Resources Council and the Conservation Law Foundation took up the cause, too. From the 1970s and 1980s and again in the early 2000s, Vermont Yankee attracted a wide range of activists who pressed for one ultimate goal: closing the plant.

When a new out-of-state owner — Entergy Corp. — purchased the Vernon plant for $180 million in 2002, and the facility began to age and show signs of deterioration (including the collapse of a cooling tower, a transmission fire and tritium leaks from underground pipes), activists ramped up the outrage, and eventually politicians — the state’s Democrats and Progressives — took up the cause, too. In 2010, Sen. Peter Shumlin, a Democrat from Windham County where the plant is located, engineered a vote in the Senate to deny Entergy an opportunity to extend its license to operate beyond a predetermined shutdown date of March 21, 2012.

On Tuesday, the anti-nukers, and Shumlin, who is now governor, got their wish: Entergy announced that they plan to close Vermont Yankee in October 2014.

Entergy officials insist the shutdown has nothing to do with the shenanigans of activists, political pressure, changes to state law, a hostile regulatory environment or the ongoing legal battles between the company and the state. It has everything to do with larger economic forces, namely the availability of cheap power from natural gas and the increased cost of maintaining an aging nuclear power plant as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission implements new standards in the wake of the Fukushima accident in March of 2012.

Bill Mohl, Entergy’s president of wholesale commodities, told reporters packed into a room at the Vermont Yankee administrative offices that the plant was no longer financially viable, and so the company had no choice but to close the plant.

“This decision was based on the economics of the plant, not operational performance, not litigation risk, nor political pressure. Simply put: The plant costs exceed the plant revenue,” Mohl said. “After careful analysis, it becomes painfully clear that Vermont Yankee is no longer financially viable.”

Mohl pointed to three key factors that led to the plant’s financial disposition. First, the rapid growth of low-priced natural gas is weighing on the nuclear industry. Second, the cost of maintaining the 41-year-old, single unit plant is prohibitively high, as Entergy has invested more than $400 million in Vermont Yankee since 2002. Lastly, Mohr said Vermont Yankee cannot compete in New England’s wholesale market because of flaws that artificially keep power prices from other sources low.

Bill Sorrell, Vermont Attorney General, left, and Gov. Peter Shumlin talk to reporters after Entergy announced it will be closing Vermont Yankee. Photo by Viola Gad
Bill Sorrell, Vermont attorney general, left, and Gov. Peter Shumlin talk to reporters after Entergy announced it will be closing Vermont Yankee. Photo by Viola Gad

Entergy’s decision to shut down Vermont Yankee came as something of a surprise to many activists, politicians and business leaders in Vermont, but Wall Street watchers have been anticipating the possible closure of the plant for some time. Last month, Entergy laid off 800 workers nationwide and cut 30 positions in Vernon; shares of Entergy dropped more than 50 percent from 2012 to 2013; and the fair market value of the Vermont Yankee plant fell by 69 percent, from $517.5 million to $162 million earlier this year.

UBS Securities downgraded Entergy Corp.’s stock from “neutral” to “sell.” The Swiss financial services firm also projected the closure of an Entergy nuclear facility in 2013, saying “Vermont Yankee is the most the most tenuously positioned plant.”

In addition, Entergy would have had to have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the plant next year in order to keep the facility operating. Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer and former member of the public oversight commission for Vermont Yankee, says they needed to replace or repair the condenser, which would cost $100 million, and they had to plow another $100 million into the plant in modifications to meet new federal requirements that were put in place after the Fukushima accident took place in March 2011.

Vermont Yankee is Entergy’s lowest capacity plant, and it’s the only facility executives say they are currently planning to decommission. Mohl said Entergy’s board decided to close the plant Sunday night and officials spoke to Gov. Peter Shumlin on Tuesday morning. The company pledged to work with the state to close the plant safely and in a manner that is best for local communities.

The announcement is a watershed moment for the state. Though no power from the plant is being sold to utilities in Vermont now, for decades the facility was the state’s No. 1 source of baseload electricity. Over the last few years, Vermont Yankee’s rates, which had been locked in at 4 cents per kilowatt-hour, suddenly increased and were no longer as competitive. At the same time, natural gas flooded the electricity market and lowered costs throughout New England. The state’s largest utility, Green Mountain Power, struck a favorable deal with Seabrook, a nuclear power plant in New Hampshire, and Hydro-Quebec, for access to low-cost electricity from a series of megadam projects in Canada. At the same time, in an attempt to meet the state’s ambitious renewable energy goals, utilities invested in local wind and solar projects.

The shutdown could also effectively neutralize the third rail of Vermont politics. Vermont Yankee has been politically polarizing for decades, and the rift between conservatives and liberals over safety and environmental impacts of nuclear power has deepened over time. Republicans have typically supported the plant, while Democrats and Progressives have more often backed the arguments of anti-nuke opponents. Shumlin ran for governor in 2010 on a shut down Yankee platform (as did his Democratic primary opponents), and a tritium leak at the plant that year made Vermont Yankee an easy target of criticism.

Though Shumlin has long had an antagonistic relationship with Entergy officials, in a press conference on Tuesday, he struck a conciliatory chord, pledging to work with the company to ensure workers get placed in new jobs.

“As you know, Entergy Loiusiana this morning made announcement it is shuttering the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant in October 2014,” Shumlin said. “This is the right decision for Vermont and the right decision for Vermont’s clean energy future.”

The governor compared the plant shutdown to a base closing, and he used phrases from his tried-and-true election stump speech: Shumlin says he sees the project as an “opportunity to grow jobs and economic opportunity” and as an opportunity for the state to continue to foster renewable energy.

About a dozen organizations — left, right and center — weighed in on the news, and press releases from the groups reflect the divide between partisans. Environmental and activist groups praised Entergy’s decision, while most business groups bemoaned the job losses associated with the closure.

Municipal officials say the layoffs will continue to erode the economy of southern Vermont in general and Windham County in particular. Forty percent of 650 workers are from Vermont. Local residents anticipate significant economic blowback from the closure at a time when Windham County is already experiencing population losses and falling incomes. While Entergy and state officials say the plant will be fully funded until the plant closes, they wouldn’t say how many workers would be laid off in the last quarter of 2014; one nuclear expert said he would anticipate that about half of the staff would receive pink slips once the plant is no longer operating.

Rep. Hebert
Rep. Mike Hebert, R-Vernon.

Rep. Mike Hebert, R-Vernon, said the closing will have an irreparable impact on local towns.

“It’s going to be devastating to our communities because of the volunteers,” he said. “Our local rescue is predominantly Yankee employees, the volunteer fire department is predominantly Yankee employees, just about every charitable organization in the county has received something from Yankee.

“It will be a brain drain,” he added. “It’s not just the economic impact.”

The economic impact will be significant. Since 2007, the Windham Regional Commission, which is the county planning commission, has been preparing for the one of the area’s largest economic engines to turn off.

“There’s a significant impact to having those very highly paid jobs,” Hebert said. “Those are the people that buy your cars and eat in your restaurants.”

Entergy workers make roughly $90,000 a year, and the company contributes nearly $100 million to the state’s economy through wages, charitable donations and payments in local and state fees and taxes. Once Vermont Yankee closes these sources of income will begin to dry up.

A 2012 report from the Southeastern Vermont Economic Development Strategies predicts there will also be a 5 percent to 15 percent major declines in real estate value.

Gundersen says when the plant stops operating next year, it’s likely that Entergy will cut the workforce in half. Those who remain will monitor the facility for five years until the fuel cools down. Then the company will drain the spent fuel pool, at which point it will need about 150 workers to keep an eye on the facility. When Entergy decommissions the plant, i.e., dismantles it sometime before 2074, it will need about 1,000 workers on site for about seven years, Gundersen says.

“The economics of nuclear are driving this,” Gundersen said. “At Vermont Yankee it takes 650 people to get the same power out of gas plant which takes 100 people.”

Five nuclear plants in the United States have closed this year, he said, because it’s no longer as profitable to generate nuclear power. People are conserving energy and utilities are increasingly reliant on natural gas, Gundersen says.

“It costs $1 billion to build a gas plant, to build a nuclear plant it costs $10 billion, plus you have to have a big staff, plus gas is so damn cheap,” Gundersen says. “The net effect is these marginal old plants that have modifications in front of them are in jeopardy.”

Decommissioning or mothballing Vermont Yankee?

Under federal law, Entergy has up to 60 years to decommission the plant. In the interim, the company can mothball the plant, leaving all of the buildings, equipment and highly radioactive spent fuel in place, according to Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Sheehan says the company could decide to dismantle the facility as soon as the spent fuel has cooled. Vermont Yankee has 1,507 fuel rod assemblies submerged in a spent fuel pool that was originally designed to hold about 350. Spent fuel must be kept under water in order to prevent the Zirconium cladding (the metal tubes that contain the fuel pellets) from igniting. Vermont Yankee’s spent fuel pool, located in a metal warehouse structure, has more than five full reactor cores worth of radioactive material.

It typically takes about 10 years to deconstruct a nuclear power plant, Sheehan said.

Entergy has made it clear that it wants to mothball the plant, put the spent fuel in concrete “dry casks,” and wait at least several decades before dismantling the plant.

Two years from the plant shutdown, the company has to submit a plan to the NRC detailing when it plans to remove the infrastructure and finish putting the fuel in dry cask storage.

Either way, the fuel will likely remain on site for decades because the federal government, which had guaranteed nuclear operators it would create a national repository for the waste, failed to secure Yucca Mountain in Nevada. For the time being, there is no other option but to keep high-level waste on the Vermont Yankee site.

Entergy Vice President Jeff Forbes, left, and President Bill Mohl, right, tell a room full of reporters how the Louisiana-based corporation plans to proceed with shutting down and dismantling the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant.
Entergy Vice President Jeff Forbes, left, and President Bill Mohl, right, tell a room full of reporters how the Louisiana-based corporation plans to proceed with shutting down and dismantling the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant.

Chris Campany, director of the regional planning commission, says it would be best for the region’s economy if Entergy used the DECON method of decommissioning, which calls for a full dismantling of the plant in a shorter time frame.

“Based on our research, that would be the softer landing because you retain those legacy employees for a longer period of time,” he said. “There would be value to Entergy to have those people stay on to advise how to take the plant apart.”

The company, however, wants to effectively mothball the plant for as long as 60 years without disposing of the plant infrastructure or dealing with the spent fuel rods now sitting in a large pool of water. Jeff Forbes, Entergy vice president of nuclear operations did not indicate when the fuel would be moved from the plant’s spent fuel pool to dry cask storage. (Many nuclear experts consider dry cask storage to be a safe method of keeping radioactive waste.) The U.S. Department of Energy would then remove the fuel at an undetermined point in time, and Entergy would completely dismantle the site. In the interim, workers would secure and monitor the site.

Campany wants Entergy to begin moving spent fuel from its on-site spent fuel pool to dry casks during operation, so that the plant can absorb those costs in its operating budget and have more decommissioning funds up front to dismantle the plant more quickly.

The dry cask storage units outside of the Vermont Yankee plant. Photo by Laura Frohn,
The dry cask storage units outside of the Vermont Yankee plant. Photo by Laura Frohn,

“The company will establish a decommissioning organization that will be responsible for planning and executing the safe decommissioning of the facility,” he said. “Decommissioning is a long process that could take decades. Once the plant is shut down, workers will defuel the reactor and place it in SAFSTOR, which is an NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] approved process.”

But the company is unlikely to begin transferring the spent fuel into long-term storage before it has officially begun the decommissioning process. That’s because Entergy doesn’t want to eat into operating revenues (and profits) — it wants to tap the decommissioning fund instead, Gundersen says.

The decommissioning fund is worth about $580 million. In 2012, Entergy completed a decommissioning cost analysis for Vermont Yankee that projects SAFSTOR could cost more than $1 billion.

Entergy has indicated it wants to wait until the decommissioning fund builds up before it begins the expensive process of dismantling the plant.

“We’re $400 million short,” Gundersen says. “If the stock market doesn’t collapse, we could get there in 20 years.”

Gundersen says the state has very little leverage to speed up the decommissioning process. The only way state officials could hasten it is by abandoning the notion of converting the Vermont Yankee compound into a greenfield for renewable energy (as Shumlin suggested at his press conference), and accepting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s less stringent plan for decommissioning, he said.

On Tuesday, neither Mohl nor Forbes would provide specifics on decommissioning costs or future job numbers. They said Entergy would conduct a detailed analysis to determine how best to decommission the plant.

Until the plant closes, Mohl said, the plant will be fully staffed.

“Then we expect after we shut down the plant and defuel the reactor, we would be able to reduce the workforce by some amount,” he said. “The actual numbers will depend on what plan we have, and we’ll have to determine that at that time.”

Editor’s note: This story was updated at 5:30 a.m. and 6:15 a.m. Aug. 28.

If you read us, please support us.

Comment Policy requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harrassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Comments should be 1000 characters or fewer.

We moderate every comment. Please go to our FAQ for the full policy.

Anne Galloway

Recent Stories

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Vermont Yankee: Where activists, lawyers and politicians failed, the ..."
  • J Mark Billian

    Could you follow-up with an article on the preparation (or lack of preparation)that Vernon and other Southern Vermont communities have made for this moment. This event has been on their calendars since 1972 and I would be interested in how proactively they have planned for the absence of Yankee..

    • Elizabeth Frye

      Nothing but lip service and painfully boring power points and useless reports. Ask how much money has been sent to Windham County over the last few years and to WHOM first… ASK…Demand to see those reports that will be your answer to your question..shameful!

  • Jeremy Stiles

    Was VT going to appeal to the Supreme Court? If I put on my tinfoil hat for a minute I could see Entery not wanting this issue thrust further into the spotlight by a Supreme Court case either saying VT can close them or telling states they are at the mercy of the nuclear plant owners in their state and have no say in the plants being open or closed. By closing VT Yankee now they avoid any sort of Supreme Court ruling when other states decide they no longer wants the plants to be kept open. That is my conspiracy theory. In reality, I assume that VT Yankee is just no longer profitable and that it will be easier to close and safestor now then deal with more court battles in the future.

    • Don Peabody

      Calling your question a “conspiracy theory” seriously undercuts open-eyed discussion of what’s really happening, Jeremy, as does constant use of the word “now.” One can hope the cheers are warranted, but 2014 is not “now” and a corporation with a history of lying can’t be depended upon to keep their “word” about closing. I think you’re right to wonder if there’s some hidden strategy here, and I think we need to ask our regulators, and elected officials to keep on with plans to ensure Entergy closes Vermont Yankee and ensure that, sometime, mid-2014, Entergy doesn’t suddenly announce that it’s “forced by a changing market to reconsider its earlier decision” and remain in operation for the “good of all.” I won’t cheer until Entergy’s taken steps that it impossible–financially, structurally, whatever–to keep Yankee going.

      • Jeremy Stiles

        I was wondering that yesterday. VT has a finite time period to appeal to the Supreme Court but if they do now, they look like anti-nuke activists. If they don’t and Entergy goes back on its word, there is nowhere to go.

        I called it a conspiracy theory mostly because I truly believe that if there was any money to be made at VT Yankee, Entergy would keep on fighting. I think greed is the prime motivator in corporate America and that for whatever reason Entergy found it more lucrative to close it then keep it open. I assume they are looking at Entergy as whole rather than the one plant in VT but do honestly believe that they also want to avoid a precedent setting Supreme Court case.

      • Karl Riemer

        “a corporation with a history of lying can’t be depended upon to keep their “word””
        it is astonishing that everybody’s responding to the press announcement as if it were prima facie evidence, when experience shows that any testimony from Entergy has a purpose independent of and only occasionally, incidentally, coincident with telling the truth. These people know the value of information, both accurate and misleading, and have no motivation whatsoever for giving away something of value without anticipation of a greater reward. Incontestably, VY will have to shut down, voluntarily or catastrophically, eventually, but the odds of Entergy’s actions matching Entergy’s words are impossible to calculate. They will say whatever they believe best suits their purpose, and their purpose is broader and more complicated than simple profit/loss on this one miniature power plant.

  • Wayne Andrews

    So dies another small town in Vermont especially in the southern part of the state.

  • Deb Tyson

    I can’t wait to see how VT intends on replacing this loss income. Loss revenue, businesses closing due to loss revenue, southern VT becoming Ghost towns. Not only is VY gone, but you have IBM, and others pulling up stakes. Lets just remember , ski resorts and folliage won’t make up the losses.

    • Jim Christiansen

      Alas, ski resorts and foliage tours are a non-essential waste of limited fossil fuels.

      Neither are environmentally sustainable for the future of Vermont in an era of climate change.

      Governor, shut them down!

      • Kathy Nelson

        Jim, People who pay to go to ski resorts and foliage tours don’t want to see the mountains covered with giant, ugly industrial wind turbines. As for waste, yes, ski resorts, gross mountaintop water parks and diesel buses waste fossil fuels, but Bill Sorrell also wasted precious state funds on a ridiculous war on VY when that money could have gone to help Vermonters improve energy efficiency in their homes. Nuclear power is still being used in VT as Canadian-owned GMP buys it from Seabrook, NH, and don’t think for a minute that the people of NH didn’t fight against the construction of that plant.
        VT, especially the people of Vernon, will suffer a great financial loss with the closure of VY. I hope the site can eventually be reused for a more modern and safer reactor.

        I think it should also be remembered that VT has a ban on fracking so we don’t mind if fracking makes a mess in other states. VT allows the selling of renewable energy credits to other states who want to continue to pollute. VT will not have nuclear soon but we don’t mind using nuclear as long as it is produced somewhere else. Our governor has allowed our laws to be subverted to cater to the whims of industrial wind developers bent on destroying our most precious natural resources to ship power out of state. Connecticut bans industrial wind but doesn’t mind trying to buy that junk electricity from VT. Taxpayer money all over the US is sucked up by greedy wind developers who use these subsidies to destroy and promote the lie that wind turbines have some use – they don’t. So much money wasted to keep the corporate machine well-padded but so little to keep the people in self-sustainable, off-grid houses.

        Remember, VT, who did you wrong in 2014. Vote with intelligence and not green hype.

    • Lester French

      The Brattleboro Reformer reported a new pizza joint will be moving to town to provide jobs.

  • Entergy officials insist the shut down has nothing to do with the shenanigans of activists, political pressure, changes to state law, a hostile regulatory environment or the ongoing legal battles between the company and the state. It has everything to do with larger economic forces…
    A4NR believes it was a combination of all of the above that drove six nuclear plants to close in 2013, and the likelihood of more next year is high. Just add seismic uncertainty and soon it will be the “Devil” closing and we will be there to nail the radioactive coffin.

  • John Greenberg

    Two corrections to this article:

    1) “Though no power from the plant is being sold to utilities in Vermont now, for decades the facility was the state’s No. 1 source of baseload electricity. Over the last few years, Vermont Yankee’s rates, which had been locked in at 4 cents per kilowatt-hour, suddenly increased and were no longer as competitive.”

    Actually, Vermont Yankee’s rates have varied a good deal over time. Immediately prior to the 2002 sale to Entergy, for example, Vermont Yankee’s rates were well above market. During the debate over utility de-regulation, Vermont Yankee was going to have to be included as a “stranded cost,” in order to allow the owners to recoup their investment which, at the time, the market appeared likely to deny them.

    As part of the sale, Entergy agreed to sell all of the plant’s (pre-uprate) power to the old owners (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation) at rates which climbed steadily year by year. In the last years of the contract, for example, the rate was 4.5 cents in 2012, 4.4 cents in 2011, 4.3 cents in 2010, and so on. These rates were set by the 2002 contract, and thus were independent of market rate movements. As it turned out, VY power was far cheaper than the market between 2002 and 2007, but after the economy crashed, even these “cheap” contractual rates were actually higher than market-rate power. (My guess would be that over the whole contractual period, ratepayers paid less than they would have for market-based power, but I haven’t done the calculations).

    The contracts negotiated in 2002 expired with the old operating license in March, 2012. Despite years of negotiation beginning in 2007 for the period after relicensing, no agreement was ever reached. In Mary Powell’s words: ““Candidly we were never able to get a contract we thought was a good value.”

    Because of this failure (which was then exacerbated by the 2010 senate vote), the plant has been selling its power into the market. It’s NOT the case that its rates “suddenly increased,” although had Entergy’s offers been accepted by the utilities, they would have. From April, 2012 through June 2013, market power averaged about 3.8 cents. That, in fact, is precisely why VY can’t make it economically any more.

    2) “Vermont Yankee has been politically polarizing for decades, and the rift between conservatives and liberals over safety and environmental impacts of nuclear power has deepened over time. Republicans have typically supported the plant, while Democrats and Progressives have more often backed the arguments of anti-nuke opponents “

    This vastly oversimplifies and in fact clearly distorts the political landscape that surrounds this issue. Democrats and Republicans have been both supporters and opponents of the plant; in quite a few cases, the SAME politician has been on both sides of the issue over the years. That is most prominently true of Peter Shumlin, now identified as an ardent plant opponent (which he is), but earlier a SUPPORTER of continued operations until 2012. Liberals and conservatives have also split on the issue, with some of each on either side of the pro/anti-VY fence. And few politicians have decided which side to take based on their environmental views alone, though there are some who have.

    Looking only at governors, Salmon, Dean and Douglas were all clearly supporters of the plant, while Shumlin is a strong opponent. Kunin and Snelling are harder to place on the spectrum.

    As to legislators, the history of key votes tells a very different story from the one you report. Acts 74 and 160 both passed with strong BI-Partisan support and were signed by a Republican governor. The 2010 senate vote was also bi-partisan. Of the 4 no votes, 2 were Democrats; 2 Republicans. Of the 26 yes votes, 21 were Democrats, 5 Republicans (including Shumlin’s 2012 opponent Randy Brock).

    The only part of your statement which is probably pretty correct is that Progressives have generally been opponents of Vermont Yankee.

  • Activists, lawyers and politicians did not fail… They brought about environmentalism which gave birth to green business and green commerce, which developed market based competitive alternatives!

    • Peter Liston

      like fracking.

  • So it looks like Gov. Shumlin got his wish, Vermont Yankee will close. With his wish comes:

    More than 600 excellent jobs to be lost.

    Dozens of businesses in Windham County dependent on Vermont Yankee will be severely harmed, if not ruined.

    Millions of dollars in direct contributions to Vermont organizations from Vermont Yankee will be lost.

    Millions of dollars of income tax revenue will be lost.

    Millions of dollars in real estate taxes will be lost.

    The southeastern Vermont and New Hampshire residential real estate market will be harmed.

    The plant decommissioning fund remains grossly under funded.

    But, the Vermont Yankee plant with is nuclear risks will remain with the people of Vermont for the next 60 years.

    This is what Gov. Shumlin thinks is a good day for Vermont.

    No wonder Rep. Tony Klein stated to Channel 3 News: “The plant closing is not because of anything the state has done.” Looks like the close the plant advocates are trying to put some distance between themselves and the mess that has been left behind for the people of Vermont and others.

  • Walter Carpenter

    “But, the Vermont Yankee plant with is nuclear risks will remain with the people of Vermont for the next 60 years. ”

    Whether yankee closes in 2014, 2024, 2034…2074…the “nuclear risks will remain with the people of Vermont for the next 60 years.” The same mess will be there no matter when this plant closes, so this is difficult to attribute the mess to anti-nuclear activists.

    “Millions of dollars of income tax revenue will be lost.”

    And millions more in tax loopholes probably filled in.

    “The southeastern Vermont and New Hampshire residential real estate market will be harmed.”

    Do we need an aging and accident-prone nuclear power plant to maintain high real estate values? And what would those real estate values be if a particularly bad accident happened at yankee because we did not shut it down on time?

    • Carl Werth

      “What would”…”if”…

  • Wayne Andrews

    My heavens what are the governmental agencies employees going to do now Yankee is shutting down? Are we to expect those employees are going to get a pink slip? Maybe Sorrell’s office can lay off a few. The Windham Regional Commission can be next in line.

  • Bob Stannard

    One very important item that has been overlooked in every press piece I’ve read is the petition that was filed with the NRC.

    Most of you are probably unaware that my former client (I’ve retired) Citizens Awareness Network, et al, filed a petition with the NRC requesting that the NRC look into the finances of VY.

    A couple of years ago, then CEO, J. Wayne Leonard, made a statement in a stockholder’s meeting that VY was a marginal plant. Then, in December of last year we saw the first UBS report questioning why Entergy was keeping VY open and spending money on lawsuits, because this plant was profitable.

    Based on these comments and reports the activists pushed the NRC (one would have thought they would have taken this initiative on their own) to inquire as to whether or not VY had the necessary finances to operate the plant safely.

    The NRC agreed to the request of the petitioners. Two weeks later Entergy announces it’s closing the plant. Once it became clear that Entergy was going to have to defend VY financially they pulled the plug.

    Now, the real concern is that if VY is closing for financial reasons, just how much at risk are we over the next 12-14 months with this aged, leaking, unprofitable plant?

    • Jim Christiansen

      The risk from Yankee is significantly less than getting in your car and driving to the country store for a cup of coffee or putting your child on the bus in the morning, or even walking down a flight of three stairs.

      If you are truly concerned with risk, than place your energies where you may actually do some good.

      Otherwise, enough with the scare tactics, and look out for those asteroids.

      • Rob Simoneau

        As I have already stated, please read the research literature. These reports do state that they do not fully understand how nuclear power plants age. They do not know all of the possible failure modes where, when and how they will fail. Interestingly, these reports are pretty honest. Just for the record the NRC will do an autopsy as they decommission VY. I hope they file a full public report and you will learn just how close we came or may come to a total disaster. Here is an interesting quote from the NRC if you do not believe the research reports.

        The reality is that a nuclear accident can occur at a U.S. nuclear power plant that would have off-site releases of radiation comparable to that of Chernobyl. Again in testimony before Congress in 1986, NRC Commissioner James Asselstine stated that:

        “While we hope that their occurrence is unlikely, there are accident sequences for U.S. plants that can lead to rupture or bypassing of containment in U.S. reactors which would result in the off-site release of fission products comparable or worse than the releases estimated by the NRC staff to have taken place during the Chernobyl accident.
        That is why the Commission told Congress recently that it could not rule out a commercial nuclear power plant accident in the United States resulting in tens of billions of dollars of property losses and injuries to the public. source.” (source) U.S. Congress, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Conservation and Power, Hearing on Nuclear Reactor Safety, 99 th Cong., 2 nd Session, May 22 and July 16, 1986, p. 38.

        I agree with Bob we are not out of the woods yet. Anything can happen to this plant during the next 12 to 14 months before it is actually decommissioned. These are no “scary tactics”, these are the reality of the day. There have been 14 near misses this year alone in the United States.

  • Walter, my comments are not about the merits of closing VY over safety issues or the concerns that some have with nuclear risks posed by the plant.

    My point is the ham-handed method of handling the entire matter by Gov. Shumlin, etal and the resultant mess left in the laps of the people of Vermont, especially those living in Windham County. It’s about the Governor’s propensity to act before he thoroughly thinks things through. I call it a “Ready, Fire, Aim” management style, which we have seen all to frequently with this Governor.

    Gov. Shumlin, instead of working to understand Entergy’s situation and negotiating constructively with them to find a mutually agreeable plan to close the plant, elected to politically demagogue the issue. Beyond the political showboating, the Governor failed to think about his next moves as the matter progressed, which has totally alienated Entergy and extinguished any real hope that the company will work constructively with Vermont going forward.

    As expected, Entergy has dutifully stated that they will work cooperatively with the state going forward and Gov. Shumlin is belatedly offering an olive branch. I say good luck with the neo “kumbaya”. Its doubtful that Entergy will do anything that isn’t absolutely in it’s own self interest at this point. Entergy is POed at the way they have been treated in Vermont, regardless of what is said publicly.

    Gov. Shumlin lost any hope of Entergy really cooperating with the state long ago and now he will be left with a green glowing closed nuclear plant for the next 60 years while hundreds of good people lose their jobs and Windham County pays the economic price of the Governor’s “Ready, Aim, Fire” handling of this matter.

  • Pete Novick

    Here’s a link to a report published by the Tax Policy Center
    titled State Economic Monitor (Quarterly Appraisal of State Economic Conditions), July 2013:

    If the economic impact of shutting down Vermont Yankee has left you unfazed, then this report should send shivers down your spine.

    Check out Figure 10, Change in Average Monthly New Housing Permits – May 2012 to May 2013, where Vermont ranks 50th (the table includes the District of Columbia).


    Connecticut – 64%
    National Average – 31%
    Vermont – 0.4% (less than one half of one per cent)

    You can be sure Vernon will be closing schools by the 2016-2017 school year.

    When are the elected officials in Vermont going to wake up to the fact that Vermont is dying economically?

  • John Greenberg

    If Vermont is “dying economically” why, according to the very document you link to, does it have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation? Why are average weekly earnings from private employment part of the 2nd highest group of states? Do state economies really die from low unemployment and high earnings?

    Judging an entire economy by 1-year’s statistics on housing permits seems, at best, a rather skewed basis for such global economic judgment.