Hoffer to Salmon: What's Up With the VT Yankee Decommissioning Fund?

Tweet

In public accounting, as in journalism, it's all about making deadlines, and Democratic candidate for auditor, Doug Hoffer, has accused Tom Salmon of blowing off a really big one.

On Wednesday, Hoffer accused the current auditor of dragging his feet on an independent audit that lawmakers requested nearly three years ago on the status of the Vermont Yankee decommissioning fund. To date, Salmon's office has yet to release the results of that audit or any of its preliminary findings.

In a written statement today, Hoffer released the text of a Nov. 6, 2007 letter sent to Salmon by Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, Sen. Ginny Lyons, Sen. Mark MacDonald and Sen. Ann Cummings. In it, the lawmakers expressed serious concerns about the status of the decommissioning fund, based on revelations first brought to light by nuclear-industry experts Arnie and Maggie Gundersen of the Burlington firm, Fairewinds Associates, Inc.

Illustration of auditor contenders Ed Flanagan, Doug Hoffer and Tom Salmon by Marc Nadel

Back in 2007, the Gundersens released a white paper accusing VY's owner, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, of not meeting its legal and financial obligations to set aside money to decommission the Vermon plant when the time comes to shut it down and clean up the site. For more on the Gundersens and their white paper, check out the December 2007 Seven Days story, "Fission Accomplished."

In their November 2007 letter, the senators wrote that the Gundersens' disclosure "raises serious questions about the size of the fund relative to projected decommissioning costs, the management of the fund by Entergy Nuclear, and the corporate structure of Entergy Nuclear relative to its parent company and the potential ramifications of that structure for Vermont taxpayers." 

Concerns about a shortfall in the decommissioning fund later led to the legislature's passage of S.373, which would have required Entergy to ensure there's enough money is in the fund to close the plant right away, rather than relying on the money to accrue over several years — or decades. S.373 was later vetoed by Gov. Jim Douglas.

On Wednesday, Hoffer jumped on Salmon for his slow action on the senators' request.

"The owners of the plant are gearing up for the coming legislative session and the information requested by the senators is extremely important," Hoffer wrote in an email to Salmon, which he also sent to reporters this morning.  "I am unclear why it has taken you so long to complete the audit but policymakers and the public need to see it."

Salmon is out of town all week and was unavailable to respond to Hoffer's allegations. However, Tanya Morehouse, his chief auditor, later issued a written statement in which she said that the Entergy report is "in draft form and out for comment to affected entities." Once those comments are returned and compiled, she wrote, the report will be made public, which she said would occur "by the end of August."

Nevertheless, even the Gundersens have expressed frustrations about the auditor's inaction. Maggie Gundersen claims that she and Arnie first brought their concerns about VY's decommissioning fund to Salmon's attention in July 2007 — several months before lawmakers asked him for an independent audit. Gundersen claims the couple met with Salmon and his staff "several times" in both Burlington and Montpelier, turned over all their documentation and pointed them to all the relevant trouble spots.

"And then nothing happened," Gundersen asserted. "So, I decided to release the report the way I did because I was frustrated that the auditor wasn't handling it. I felt like everything was going into a black hole. And it's obvious that's what happened."

In this year's auditor's race, Hoffer is trying to convince voters that he's the better candidate to challenge Salmon this fall, but must first defeat Sen. Ed Flanagan in the Democratic primary on Aug. 24. Today's shot across the bow at the Democrat-turned-Republican also included a thinly veiled indictment of Salmon's professional integrity. In his press release, Hoffer questioned the auditor's decision to meet with Entergy representatives in his office in April 2008 while the legislature was still debating S.373. Shortly thereafter, Hoffer notes, Salmon sent a letter to all lawmakers expressing his concerns that the bill could "add undue risk to the state."

"We will never know what transpired in those conversations between Tom Salmon and Entergy officials," Hoffer added, "but it's not unreasonable to ask if Mr. Salmon feels biased or personally impaired in this matter."

Comments

[CW Post]

"but it's not unreasonable to ask if Mr. Salmon feels biased or personally impaired in this matter."

"Impaired." Nice word choice.

[Jimmy]

"We will never know what transpired in those conversations between Tom Salmon and Entergy officials"

Doug Hoffer is concerned that his opponent *might* have an agenda? Now that's a laff!

[TheHoffster]

Hoffer have an agenda?! No way!

[Jeff]

Every political figure has an agenda. What kind of listless moron would run for office with no agenda? OF course Hoffer has an agenda. As does Salmon. The question is which agenda do you agree with more?

[Jimmy]

Candidates for the office of State Auditor tend to run on *not* having an agenda, but rather on fundamental qualifications to do the job. A non-CPA idealogue who comes right out of the gate with a screechingly negative campaign wouldn't have a snowball's chance in most states. Of course, as a Progressive, Hoffer has 7 Days stumping pretty hard for him, so who knows.

[Rob]

The real question is, do you vote for someone who wears their agenda on their sleeve, or someone who hides it under their hat?

[Jimmy]

I vote for someone who has already served as Auditor, had the chance to demonstrate any agenda, and not done so.

That narrows it down to two of the candidates.

[oy]

Jimmy's a democrat who is really sad there's not a good one in the race.

[MURPHY]

"Every political figure has an agenda. What kind of listless moron would run for office with no agenda? OF course Hoffer has an agenda. As does Salmon. The question is which agenda do you agree with more?"

No one running for the office of Auditor SHOULD have an agenda -- other than just wanting to do the job of auditing to the best of his/her ability. Period. What a concept.

Unfortunately, all three of these guys have, and seemingly always have had, an agenda.

1. Flanagan was never qualified to be Auditor in the first place. He's not an accountant. He's not a CPA. He's not an auditor. He was a joker with a law degree who never practiced law. He was nothing but a ambitious politician with a huge ego and a huger mouth. And when he held the job of Auditor in the 90s he demonstrated clearly that he was just using it for publicity purposes and that he really wanted higher office. If you got between Flanagan and a camera or microphone you were in grave physical danger. He later proved this by running for US Senate with his tacky "bulldog" campaign. And, no matter what you thought of him then, he's now entirely unqualified to hold public office by virtue of his diminished mental capacity and bizarre personal behavior.

2. Hoffer is a dyed-in-the-wool socialist who views everything through the lens of favoring big government. The private sector is bad. Government is great, and should expand. (Burlington Telecom, anyone?) And Vermonters just aren't taxed enough! That's an agenda I don't want in the state Auditor, or any statewide office.

3. Salmon has the CPA credential but has already stated explicitly that he has designs on higher office. And he's just a goofball, with questionable judgment. But he did stand up to the Democrats in the Legislature last session and say the unthinkable: they absolutely, positively refuse to come to grips with economic reality and slash the state budget.

I'll vote for the one goofball who has a CPA degree and at least had the guts to tell the truth about our budget.

Either that or I'll write in former Auditor Brock. He was uber-qualified, and he had something none of these three have: POISE AND DIGNITY.

[Marna Ehrech]

This is all very disheartening. There is much more at stake than political favors, agendas and "image." VT Yankee was designed to last no longer than it's established lifetime. It's decommissioning needs to take place as scheduled, from what I've read. Salmon's reluctance to do his job in this matter is frightening. Look what's happening with Chernobyl now, folks. The writing is on the wall. Let's shut 'er down while it can still be done with what modicum of safety still exists.

[Jimmy]

"I'll vote for the one goofball who has a CPA degree and at least had the guts to tell the truth about our budget."

I agree with 99% of your comment Murphy. I would add that an agenda driven by ideology is far more dangerous for an Auditor than wanting a better job someday, though.

BTW, anyone else notice Maggie Gundersen's screed on GMD last night? She actually said that Salmon is "hiding and most likely manipulating data," with the only evidence being that it's taken him a long time to generate a report. Yeah, there's a credible source.

[webber]

The Gundersons are per se not credible. They are hysterical, paranoid, and agenda-driven. And they are Shumlin's useful tools.

[Haik Bedrosian]

I had a nice chat with Arnie Gunderson this summer and he was not acting hysterical or paranoid at all.

[Jimmy]

I guess that leaves agenda-driven. Although assuming that someone's "manipulating data" before you've even seen their report doesn't sound super rational.

Regardless, they're certainly not the best people to be basing stories around, especially without waiting to get the other side.

[Haik Bedrosian]

The phrase "agenda-driven" does not mean anything.

[webber]

I think you know exactly what it means. You don't think, for example, that lots of politicians are agenda-driven? Anyway, it means something to me. In the case of the Gundersons and the "shut it down now" zealots, it means that you've come to your conclusion first, and all information is either filtered to fit the conclusion, or, if it doesn't fit or support the conclusion, is shaped, ignored, or rejected. Sort of like religion, you know? And then, everything you do is to further the realization of your pre-ordained conclusion. Like: Kiss insisting that the city should be in the telecom biz and that everything is just fine with BT. Like: Shumlin thinking he should be Governor. Like: the Gundersons insisting that Yankee should be shut down. In all cases, absolutely nothing you can say, absolutely no information you can present to them, will change their mind, and their agenda is what they live for.

And, by the way, you should be smart enough to know that having a chat with someone in which they don't act hysterical or paranoid does not mean that they aren't hysterical or paranoid. Can't you think of lots of crazy people who come off as normal during a conversation?

If you're going to engage in this debate about the Gundersons mentality, please address Jimmy's question about how it's rational for them to accuse the Auditor of "manipulating the data" in a report that they haven't seen yet.

[Jimmy]

I should add that I expect to see a new post on this when Salmon actually responds. Kind of like I expected to see Totten post detailed lists of contributors to Dem fundraisers, as he did with Dubie, and as promised. Which is to say, I don't expect that to happen at all.