Entergy: No Sale of Vermont Yankee

Tweet

At the close of business yesterday Entergy issued a press release straight out of "Deal or No Deal."

The deal? The company announced that it had completed contract talks with Vermont Electric Cooperative (VEC), the state's third largest utility, on a two-year agreement to sell power.

The no deal? That it had failed to find a buyer for Vermont Yankee.

In reality, the proposed deal with VEC is subject to approval by VEC’s Board of Directors, and is contingent on the plant running after March 2012.

Last week, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued VY a 20-year license extension, allowing it to operate until 2032. However, the state Public Service Board has yet to issue a certificate of public good, because the Vermont Senate last year voted to deny VY a license extension. In 2006, when the Vermont Legislature approved the storage of spent fuel in dry casks it also inserted itself as an arbiter in whether VY could remain open beyond 2012.

It is expected that Entergy will file suit against Vermont, arguing that federal law preempts any state decision on the operation of nuclear power plants.

"Of course, we're expecting an Entergy preemption suit, perhaps any day now," Attorney General Bill Sorrell tells Seven Days. Sorrell is continuing to investigate whether Entergy Vermont Yankee officials lied under oath to state regulators about the existence of underground pipes — pipes that later were the source of several leaks of tritium into the groundwater and Connecticut River.

The Agency of Natural Resources, along with Sorrell's office, is examining whether the tritium leak violated the state's new law governing groundwater as a "public trust." The law, passed in 2008, declares groundwater as worthy of protection for all Vermonters, not just the landowners of the soil the water flows through.

Despite the potential legal battles, a top Entergy official said the proposed VEC plan is just one more step in an effort to keep VY up and running beyond 2012.

“Entergy continues to seek successful resolution related to the long-term future of Vermont Yankee to benefit all stakeholders, including the approximately 650 men and women who work at the plant,” said Richard Smith, president of Entergy Wholesale Commodities. “Securing agreements with the local electric companies to sell power from the plant at affordable prices is one of the efforts that has been under way for some time.”

Entergy will provide around-the-clock energy and capacity beginning in March 2012 to the Vermont Electric Cooperative, which serves approximately 34,000 people in 74 towns throughout northern Vermont. The power price for the first year of the contract is fixed and will be $49 per megawatt hour, which is below the current market, Entergy said in a news release. That's 4.9 cents per kilowatt hour. Future prices will fluctuate with the market.

VEC's CEO David Hallquist said Entergy's press release was "misleading," noting there is "no agreement." VEC presently purchases 10 megawatts of power from Entergy at a much higher prices than contemplated in the deal.

"Even with this as a backdrop, the VEC Board of Directors is struggling with any decision to take power from Entergy after 2012, even if Vermont agrees to allow Entergy to operate," said Hallquist in a statement. "A number of the VEC Board of Directors have voiced concern with Entergy's poor relationship with Vermont, the fact that the Fukushima reactor in Japan is the same design, and there is one million pounds of radioactive waste at VY with no plans on what to do with it.

The VEC's board will take up this contract again at its April 26  meeting, and it will likely be a topic at VEC's annual meeting in May, added Hallquist.

Entergy also stated that the previously announced process to explore the sale plant has concluded without a sale.

“Although we received interest from a number of companies, the conclusion of the sale process, without a sale, was driven primarily by the uncertain political environment in Vermont,” Smith said. “The plant’s strong operating performance was attractive to potential buyers; the political uncertainty was not.”

A key opponent of their continued operation is Gov. Peter Shumlin. In a statement, Shumlin said he wasn't surprised that Entergy couldn't find a buyer.

“It is not surprising that Entergy could not find a buyer for Vermont Yankee. The plant and its operators have had numerous issues — cooling tower collapses, a transformer fire, leaked tritium, and misinformation about the underground piping — and I have no confidence in the continued operation of the plant or in its owners," said Shumlin.

A change in ownership, along with power deals with Vermont utilities, were seen by VY supporters as key changes necessary to curry favor with Vermont lawmakers in hopes of getting the legislature to take a new vote this session. That remains unlikely.

It also remains unlikely that Vermont's largest utility — Central Vermont Public Service — will sign an agreement with VY anytime soon, either.

"We concluded that there were four conditions if we were to sign a deal: NRC approval of relicensing; the sale of the plant to a new owner; an agreement for Entergy to sell 20 megawatts in Vermont in addition to sales to CV and GMP; and state approval of the decommissioning and any other issues of interest to the state," said CVPS CEO Bob Young. "It has been our position that we would not enter into a formal contract absent a sale and tacit state approval of any proposed deal."

CVPS and Green Mountain Power believe that if VY operates beyond 2012 that Entergy will have to share a portion of any power sales with the two utilities, according to a memorandum of understanding that Entergy signed with the utilities back in 2002 when it bought the reactor. The MOU is not contingent upon a CPG from the state, only if the plant remains in operation, CVPS officials said.

Comments

[Jimmy]

Paraphrasing a pundit on NPR the other day: "VY will most likely continue to operate with or without the state's approval. What are they going to do, send in the militia to shut them down?"

[Tim]

"Of course, we're expecting an Entergy preemption suit, perhaps any day now," Attorney General Bill Sorrell tells Seven Days."

From tritium in groundwater to sugar in soft drinks, Bill Sorrell is always there for us.

[Todd for VT House]

LOL, arguing that Federal law pre-empts the State's when they agreed in the MOU to abide by VT law? Stay classy, Entergy.

[Jimmy]

@Todd, Shumlin's doing the same thing wrt Safstor, and he doesn't even have a legal precedent to fall back on.

[John Greenberg]

"@Todd, Shumlin's doing the same thing wrt Safstor, and he doesn't even have a legal precedent to fall back on." Neither does Entergy, or perhaps you'd be so kind as to cite it for us.

[Jcarter]

Hmmm, better deal then HQ.

It's too bad that the public is so blind as to see the damage Shumlin has done. When it was announced VY was up for sale, Shummy must have gotten that sick feeling in his stomach. With much of the negative attack on VY directed at Entergy a sale would derail his attempt to shut down the plant, and that after all is the goal. In the haste to have a no vote on relicensing in place for the Gov's race, they directly harmed the possibility of a sale of VY. The committee set up by the Legislature noted that VY could be operated safely, with the caveat under different management. The Shumlin led Senate halted that possibility, because after all, it was never about Entergy or their trustworthiness, it was about garnering support for the Gov's race by appealing to the anti-nuke/anti-big corp crowd that has proved so fruitful for Sanders. Now, Entergy will remain as the owners of VY, they will likely file for pre-emption, and if successful continue to operate selling ALL the power out of state without benefit to Vermonters, accept for the few VEC customers.

CVPS and GMP are holding fast in their denial of a power contract as it would cause a loss of reason as to why they need to hike future rates for renewables. We will look back at this as an energy blunder on par with not purchasing the hydro dams on the CT river. Difference being this one was purely politically motivated.

Finally CVPS and GMP are grasping at straws with the profit sharing contained in the MOU. I think everyone can agree that the MOU seems to be disregarded by both sides. Toss that thing and move on. But it does bring up the question, IF VY did give shares to CVPS and GMP what would that money be used for? I've got 10-1 odds it doesn't go to reducing rates.

[murphy]

@ Todd and Greenberg:

in the 2002 MOU Entergy agreed to abide by a decision of the Public Service Board. Greenberg, at least, knows very well that that's true. That's a different thing from the Legislature later passing a law that purports to deprive the PSB of the authority to make the decision. That sneaky little maneuver was not anywhere in the MOU.

@ Greenberg:

Shumlin has no legal basis for saying the Safsor provision in the MOU should be ignored just because he doesn't like it. Period. Period. Period.

[John Greenberg]

First, I hate to interrupt JCarter's fantasies with the facts, but that appears to be my job these days.

The premise of his argument is that the Senate vote prevented Entergy from selling VY. At the time of the vote, however, Entergy had no interest in selling VY. It had already spun it off into what it hoped would be a separate company called Enexus, along with the rest of its "non-utility" nuclear fleet. Indeed, the shabby finances behind that deal, and its transparent attempt to shed its liability for its aging nuclear fleet motivated more than one senator to vote against VY. I discussed the Enexus deal with at least 4 senators otherwise reasonably favorably inclined towards VY prior to the vote. (Obviously, I can't say with any certainty whether, absent Enexus, any would have voted for VY. I CAN say it was a major issue for all of them and for other senators as well.)

Eventually, Entergy realized that their maneuver was not going to succeed, and they opted to abandon it when the NY Public Service Commission balked at the deal. Months AFTER the Senate vote AND AFTER the decision to abandon Enexus, Entergy decided to try a different tack to shed its liability: namely, a sale to a third party. It's now clear that this latest strategy has also failed.

Carter also writes: "I think everyone can agree that the MOU seems to be disregarded by both sides." Shumlin has attempted to disregard it concerning SAFESTOR; who else would Carter include in "everyone?" {The utilities are quite right and Carter is entirely wrong about the revenue sharing agreement, but since, as I've argued for years now, it's likely to be of no value except as an insurance policy, I won't argue the several points here, since it's really a moot point.)

Murphy suggest a similar argument: "Shumlin has no legal basis for saying the Safsor provision in the MOU should be ignored ...." I agree. Shumlin is perfectly entitled to say that he thinks that this provision was a mistake and to look for ways to renegotiate that part of the agreement; indeed, I think he should. But the basic fact remains: the MOU, until or unless it's modified, DOES allow for SAFESTOR.

Finally, as to Murphy's other point about the MOU, yes indeed, I do know full well that Entergy agreed in the MOU to accept a decision of the PSB "under current law." And it's certainly true that Act 160, which gave the legislature the right to effectively preempt the PSB from making a final decision was passed subsequent to the MOU. Two questions.

1) So what? The right to regulate VY on non-nuclear and non-safety aspects comes NOT from the MOU, but from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. In the Court's words: "From the passage of the Atomic Energy Act in 1954, through several revisions, and to the present day, Congress has preserved the dual regulation of nuclear powered electricity generation: the Federal Government maintains complete control of the safety and "nuclear" aspects of energy generation, whereas the States exercise their traditional authority over economic questions such as the need for additional generating capacity, the type of generating facilities to be licensed, land use, and ratemaking." (PG & E v. State Energy Comm'n, 461 U.S. 190 (1983)

Entergy agreed with that right in the MOU. At best, if Murphy's argument were correct, the change in Vermont law would give it some basis to explain to a judge why it had changed its corporate mind. But that would NOT provide it with an answer to the core question: what's the basis for thinking that Vermont does not have this right? So, now to Jimmy, JCarter, and Murphy, cite your cases and explain why Vermont does NOT have a right which, quite clearly, the Supreme Court of the US (and Chairman Jaczko of the NRC, following them) believes it DOES have.

2) Why does Murphy think that Act 160 CONTRADICTS the MOU? The Public Service Board exists in the first place because the legislature passed a law to bring it into existence. From a legal point of view, the legislature has the right to create it, modify it however it wants (within state and federal Constitutional bounds) and limit its activity as it chooses.

In fact, Act 160 was passed with Entergy's consent (because it also allowed VY to offload spent fuel into dry casks, which they needed to do since their spent fuel pool was full). The law was signed by pro-VY governor Jim Douglas. But even without the consent of either, it would be perfectly legal, and does NOT in any way contradict the MOU.

[Jcarter]

A.) Greenberg, you continually say I'm wrong and yet most of the time your rebuttals don't even address anything I've stated, or in some cases even strengthen my point.

B.) "The premise of his argument" John, perhaps you should stop reading IN to my posts and just try to read them. OR not, it's probably best if you and I stop the back and forth.

C.) 7DAYS... in other forums I have been in there is an ignore option that hides specified posters comments.... any chance we can get one of those?

[John Greenberg]

"In the haste to have a no vote on relicensing in place for the Gov's race, they directly harmed the possibility of a sale of VY." JCarter

Exactly what did I miss?

[Jimmy]

"Neither does Entergy, or perhaps you'd be so kind as to cite it for us."

PG&E v. State Energy Commission (461 U.S. 190, 1983).

There's this great site out there called Google, you ought to check it out sometime, "Greenberg."

[Jcarter]

This is what you said
"The premise of his argument is that the Senate vote prevented Entergy from selling VY. At the time of the vote, however, Entergy had no interest in selling VY"

This is what I said
"In the haste to have a no vote on relicensing in place for the Gov's race, they directly harmed the possibility of a sale of VY."

Do you see the difference Greenberg. I stated that the Legislative vote directly harmed a VY sale. You state that's false because when the Legislature voted Entergy wasn't selling it. TWO UNFREAKING RELATED POINTS. STOP TRYING TO READ INTO THINGS. It's impossible to debate with you when you make shit up as you go along. So what you missed was the ACTUAL FREAKING STATEMENT. For Christ's sake John. Just read and respond, pretty much no one takes you even the slightest bit seriously because you write these long rants that usually don't even resemble a response to the post or posters you are responding. Which is in actuality a shame, because you are very knowledgable on the topic and have something to offer the dialogue if you tried to engage others instead of rambling off on some point no one is talking about.

[murphy]

"2) Why does Murphy think that Act 160 CONTRADICTS the MOU? The Public Service Board exists in the first place because the legislature passed a law to bring it into existence. From a legal point of view, the legislature has the right to create it, modify it however it wants (within state and federal Constitutional bounds) and limit its activity as it chooses."

Greenthing, perhaps you should check out this U.S. constitutional concept called ex post facto. It means you can't change the legal rules after the game has started. In the US at least, you can't invalidate one party's rights in a contract by changing the laws after the contract has been entered into. That is what the Vermont did by entering into an agreement with Entergy that said the PSB could decide the relicensure issue, but then 4 years later, pulling the rug out from under the deal by preventing the PSB from rendering a decision.

[Todd for VT House]

Murphy - SCOTUS ruled in Calder v Bull (1798) that _ex post facto_ only applies to criminal cases, not civil.

Anyway, I agree with Greenburg. The MOU said the PSB is governed by state law and that ENVY can make no claims about Federal jurisdiction. And it allows for SAFESTOR, whether Shummy likes it or not.

[Todd for VT House]

Sorry, SAFSTOR. Too easy to add the 'e'.

[John Greenberg]

Responding to my critics:

Jimmy. I cited PG&E above, which, since you missed it the first time, specifically states that States retain "...their traditional authority over economic questions such as the need for additional generating capacity, the type of generating facilities to be licensed, land use, and ratemaking." How does this support your preemption case?

JCarter. Perhaps I'm just dense, but I still don't get the distinction you're making, especially when it's read in context. So, no, I don't see the difference. I apologize, because I know this frustrates you.

Murphy. First, the ex post facto clause governs the US Congress, which was not involved here. Second, as Todd mentions above, it is limited to criminal law, which is not in question here. And third, the change in the law -- namely the passage of Act 160 -- was supported by Entergy. I'm not a contract lawyer, but I find your argument totally unconvincing. In any case,as noted previously, it is completely irrelevant to the fundamental question, since Vermont's right to regulate VY comes from federal law, not from the MOU.

[murphy]

"Murphy. First, the ex post facto clause governs the US Congress, which was not involved here. Second, as Todd mentions above, it is limited to criminal law, which is not in question here. And third, the change in the law -- namely the passage of Act 160 -- was supported by Entergy. I'm not a contract lawyer, but I find your argument totally unconvincing. In any case,as noted previously, it is completely irrelevant to the fundamental question, since Vermont's right to regulate VY comes from federal law, not from the MOU."

The above is so mixed up I don't know where to begin.

No, the the rights guaranteed to citizens under the US Constitution do not only apply to Congress! It's remarkable that as an educated adult you would even say such a thing. The ex post facto doctrine applies to the states. US Const., Art. 1, sec. 10.

No, the ex post fact doctrine does not only apply to criminal law. Why you would rely on a fringe candidate for elective office for your propositions, is beyond me.

And, yes, the state of Vermont may have a limited right to regulate a nuclear power plant, but it does not have the right to usurp exclusive federal authority, which is exactly what it is attempting to do.

Lastly, you try to play both sides of the fence on the import of the MOU, as it serves your purpose. But what you don't even seem to get, is that if the MOU is, as you and the Shumlin administration now argue, essentially a superseded and meaningless document, that only STRENGTHENS Entergy's hand in arguing that the state -- whether it be the PSB or the legislature -- does not have authority to prevent VY from continuing to operate. Keep arguing the irrelevance of the MOU. Personally, I'm with ya on that.

[Jimmy]

"Jimmy. I cited PG&E above"

If you already had the precedent, why did you ask for it? I'm not going to read through your ridiculously long-winded posts to see if you've already answered your own question.

"How does this support your preemption case?"

Because the section you quoted refers to initial permits to build reactors, not the ability of states to allow them to stay open.

But I'm not going to argue this with you. I'm not an attorney and neither are you (I'm assuming, given how much free time you seem to have in the middle of a weekday). Entergy has laid out their position on this issue and Vermont has laid out theirs. You asked for Entergy's precedent, that's one case they're using as precedent. It's a direct and correct answer to your question. Good Lord man, just try to stay on topic for once.

[John Greenberg]

To my critics:

Murphy. On my first point, you're absolutely correct. I was looking at Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which DOES apply to Congress. (I never made anything like the blanket statement about the Constitution that you attribute to me). But I neglected section 10, which applies the ex post facto provision to the states. I apologize for my error.

On the rest, I still disagree with you. I wasn't relying on Todd, I was relying on the Congressional Research Service's "The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation," which provides a detailed reading of Constitutional doctrine through history and court cases. It cites the case Todd cited, so I noted that Todd had mentioned it. CRS reaches precisely the same conclusion about Section 10 as they did about Section 9: "This clause, like the cognate restriction imposed on the Federal Government by Section 9, relates ONLY to penal and criminal legislation and not to civil laws which affect private rights adversely." (pp. 380-381 of the 1973 edition, citing 7 cases.)

You then go on to assume what you need to prove, when you say that a state "does not have the right to usurp exclusive federal authority, which is exactly what it is attempting to do." That WOULD be what the state was trying to do IF it were regulating in an area of "exclusive federal authority," in this case, the
"safety and "nuclear" aspects of nuclear generation." But since the Senate explicitly avoided these areas, in the bill text, legislative deliberations, and testimony, it simply isn't. Instead, the State of Vermont is regulating in the areas of its "traditional authority," which it is explicitly allowed to do. Once again, if you have a case or a doctrine which casts doubt on this, cite it.

I haven't written anything which can be interpreted as suggesting in any way that the MOU is "essentially a superseded and meaningless document." I HAVE stated that it is NOT and NEVER WAS the basis for the State's right to regulate. The fact is that the MOU has nothing whatsoever to do with whether "the state -- whether it be the PSB or the legislature -- [does or] does not have authority to prevent VY from continuing to operate," to use your phrasing. THAT question is a matter of settled federal law.

Since I continue NOT to accept your argument that Act 160 somehow qualifies as an "ex post facto" law, I continue to believe that Entergy IS still bound by its agreement in clause 12 of the MOU. So in fact, unlike you apparently, I think the MOU remains a binding document in all respects. And, as noted above, unlike Shumlin, I believe it therefore still remains binding as to SAFSTOR as well.

Jimmy. If you don't want to read posts, don't respond to them ("I'm not going to read through your ridiculously long-winded posts"). I cited PG&E because it makes MY argument, not yours. It clearly sets forth the areas in which states are NOT preempted. The section I quoted is NOT limited "to initial permits to build reactors." Where does it say that? I asked you to cite a basis for YOUR case, not MINE.

The fact remains that after all of this back and forth, I keep asking a simple question which none of you has answered. The PG&E case is facially clear in giving the States the right to regulate in areas of their "traditional authority."

On what basis, therefore, will a federal preemption lawsuit prevail? Since you're all so dead certain about it, this shouldn't be a hard question to answer.

[Jimmy]

"Jimmy. If you don't want to read posts, don't respond to them"

I didn't respond to your comment that mentioned the PG&E case, come on man, READ. "@Todd" means I was responding to Todd. YOU responded to my comment to Todd. Is it really that complicated?

"I cited PG&E because it makes MY argument, not yours."

??? My "argument" was that Shumlin wanted to back away from the MOU. You took issue with my statement that Entergy has legal precedent. They DO. They cited the PG&E case. That is one precedent that they are citing. Whether it will allow them to prevail is not relevant. Again... really that complicated?

"I asked you to cite a basis for YOUR case, not MINE."

No, you asked me what precedent Entergy had. You don't even need to remember what you said, it's right here on this page. Please, "Greenberg," stop making a fool of yourself.

[murphy]

"But since the Senate explicitly avoided these areas, in the bill text, legislative deliberations, and testimony, it simply isn't. Instead, the State of Vermont is regulating in the areas of its "traditional authority," which it is explicitly allowed to do."

Jesus, you're either an incredibly naive simpleton, or shamelessly willing to engage in the same fraud as Shumlin.

Just because the Vt. Senate was pretending not to usurp federal authority when it voted not to allow the PSB to consider relicensure, doesn't mean that that isn't exactly what it was doing.

In fact, when they were debating the bill, in committee and on the floor, the Dems had to have constant "hall monitors" to make sure no one accidentally uttered the word "safety," when, in fact, everyone knew that that's exactly what they were debating.

The whole thing was a pitiful charade. Everybody seems to know that but you. I daresay the federal courts will recognize it in a heartbeat.

[Jcarter]

Greenberg says:

"JCarter. Perhaps I'm just dense, but I still don't get the distinction you're making, especially when it's read in context."

FINALLY WE AGREE. !!

John just re-read that last post I made. I said one thing. You then said I was wrong and the repeated my statement before then adding a second irrelevant point I didn't.

It would be like this :

Me : the grass is green

John : you are wrong !! the grass is green, but if it were in the desert it wouldn't be because it can't live in the desert and therefore it would be dead and yellow.

It is entirely impossible to have a dialogue with you for exactly this reason, you can't stick with the conversation. Seems you have the same trouble with the other posters as well. Are we all just ignorant nudnicks or do you suppose it's you?

[Todd for VT House]

"No, the ex post fact doctrine does not only apply to criminal law. Why you would rely on a fringe candidate for elective office for your propositions, is beyond me."

Um, I did cite the Supreme Court decision. You could look into it.

"And, yes, the state of Vermont may have a limited right to regulate a nuclear power plant, but it does not have the right to usurp exclusive federal authority, which is exactly what it is attempting to do."

No, it's not. As Greenberg cited above, the Supreme Court found that states can regulate essentially anything other than safety (and actually, the NRC also has provisions to allow states to do that if they follow particular rules, but I'm not aware of any state taking them up on that), which includes economic and general welfare considerations. And I got such confirmation from the NRC itself that license is necessary, not a sufficient condition for operation within a state, where other laws may apply (Entergy's own acceptance of state supremacy over Federal law notwithstanding).

[murphy]

"No, it's not. As Greenberg cited above, the Supreme Court found that states can regulate essentially anything other than safety . . ."

Um, I guess Todd for VT House didn't read my last posting. Despite the fact that Sen. Shumlin and his compliant band engaged in a carefully-orchestrated effort to avoid using the word "safety," they were clearly voting based on alleged concerns about safety. Shumlin's repeated statements about the "aging plant" will confirm that. (Of course, they were really voting on Shumlin's desire to become Governor.)

No honest argument can be made that the vote was about "economics" since there's plenty of jobs and tax revenue still to be realized from the plant -- one of VT's largest employers and taxpayers. Killing the plant kills jobs, taxes, and the Clean Energy Development Fund, so the argument that they were voting on economics will be laughed out of court. The vote was entirely about alleged concerns over safety. The federal court system will easily see through that charade (especially if they get to take sworn depositions of the legislators and ask about behind-the-scenes conversations).

[John Greenberg]

As much as I'd like to avoid having this degenerate further into a simple slug fest, I cannot allow Murphy's last post to pass in silence.

First, I should note that, after much huffing and puffing, everyone now appears to agree that PG&E, and in particular the passage I quoted, IS the guiding law here. Given that, we are now arguing NOT about the law and the precedents, which clearly DO allow states to regulate in their "traditional" areas, but rather whether the facts of this case in particular do or do not support a finding that Vermont has properly applied the law.

Murphy's last two posts appear to be largely predicated on his belief that "No honest argument can be made that the vote was about "economics...." For that reason, he argues, the Senate vote MUST have been about safety, and that's why "the Dems had to have constant "hall monitors" to make sure no one accidentally uttered the word "safety," when, in fact, everyone knew that that's exactly what they were debating." This, he concludes, is nothing more than a "charade that "the federal court system will easily see through...." (I'm not sure exactly how Murphy explains the fact that 5 of the 7 Republicans voted AGAINST continued operations, or indeed why various posters think these 5 would be complicit in Shumlin's bid to become governor, but that's a sideshow.)

So here's an argument made in a brief to the Public Service Board in Docket 7440. Readers can decide for themselves whether it qualifies as "honest" and whether the issues raised are about "safety and "nuclear aspects" of energy generation" or about the State's "traditional authority" as PG&E puts it:

"134. Without a PPA with favorable pricing terms, no benefit can be assigned to purchase of plant output by Vermont utilities. Tr. 6/3/09 at 77 (Lamont).
135. As a nuclear generation facility, VY imposes unique burdens on the State of Vermont that are not easily quantified and assessed under the criteria of subsection (b) of section 248, but rather fall more appropriately under the concept of promotion of the general good of
the state. Lamont pf. 4/24/09 at 5." (p.59)
"Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that an extended period of operations for VY will promote the general good of the state under 30 V.S.A. §248(a)(2) because they have not produced any PPA for consideration by the Board, much less one with favorable rates, terms and conditions for Vermont utilities and their ratepayers." (p.60)
"Additionally, the Board should reject any suggestion by VY that the RSA as it exists, or that monetizing the RSA=s expected value to create a lower priced PPA, is sufficient value to preclude the need for a favorably-priced PPA." (p.61)
"Without implementation of the Department's recommendations, and without a favorably priced PPA available to all Vermont utilities, the Board should decline to issue Petitioners the requested authority for an extended operations period for VY." (p.62)

These are quotes from the July 17, 2009 brief which summarizes the Department of Public Service's views on whether a CPG should be granted to VY. As can be seen, the DPS, which was then under the direction of Commissioner David O'Brien and governor Jim Douglas OPPOSED the granting of a CPG. To my knowledge, this position has never been modified in testimony or briefs in PSB cases, and thus remains the official position of the Department.

But I'm sure Murphy's right. Only a simpleton like me would take this any of this seriously, and a federal court will see right through it.

[Jcarter]

John what a nice point you bring up.

John cites a PSB docket : "Without a PPA with favorable pricing terms, no benefit can be assigned to purchase of plant output by Vermont utilities. Tr. 6/3/09 at 77 (Lamont)."

What John fails to realize here is that this passage entirely negates any economic discussion relating to the Senates vote on VY. If there is no benefit can be assigned, then the economic argument becomes moot, since no economic benefit can be assigned. You can't assess the economics without a PPA.

Great the economic argument has been settled. Clearly that wasn't the reason.

[John Greenberg]

JCarter writes: "If there is no benefit can be assigned, then the economic argument becomes moot..." Sorry, not so.

"In order to obtain a Certificate of Public Good under 30 V.S.A. ' 248, Petitioners must not only demonstrate compliance with each criterion under subsection (b), they must also demonstrate separately that continued operation of VY for an extended 20-year period will promote the general good of the State of Vermont. 30 V.S.A. ' 248(a)(2)..." p.60 of the same brief) In other words, the onus is on the petitioner (i.e. Entergy) to make a positive showing of benefit ("provide for the general good"). DPS is arguing that Entergy has failed to do that. In fact, DPS is asserting, the opposite is true in this case: the costs of continued operation outweigh the benefits, and therefore the CPG should not be granted.

JCarter can accept or reject the argument on its merits, but unless he can show that the DPS argument somehow concerns "safety and the "nuclear aspects" of energy generation," he has failed to show that it concerns an issue which is subject to federal preemption. For the very same reason, since the Senate came to the same conclusion, he has failed to show that that its vote can be preempted.

[Jimmy]

"everyone now appears to agree that PG&E, and in particular the passage I quoted, IS the guiding law here."

Another example of selective comprehension. You and I are the only ones who have mentioned PG&E, and I only gave it as ONE example of precedent cited by Entergy. "You're doing a heckuva job, Greeny"

See you in 2013 - typing on a computer powered by VY-generated electricity.

[murphy]

@ Greenberg:

Wha?

1. The fact that the DPS took a position against VY, at one particular time, on the grounds that there were no PPAs in place yet, and because the Douglas Administration was annoyed with VY (and rightly so), has absolutely, positively NOTHING to do with whether or not the Senate's vote to deny the PSB the authority to consider relicensure was an illegal vote on safety. How can you not understand the difference between apples and oranges?

2. The DPS positions you cite were not necessarily intended to be the Douglas Administration to be the state's last word in the PSB on the relicensure issue. All the DPS was complaining about was the lack of PPAs being in place.

3. JCarter is exactly right: since the Senate voted to deny the PSB the authority to consider relicensure AFTER the DPS filed the brief you cite above, why did Shumlin feel the need to hold a vote at all? Why? Because he was afraid that the economics might change and continued operations would be found economcally viable, that's why. So he decided to try to nail the coffin shut, with a power play that was a disguised vote on safety.

The federal court system will recognize this. Geez, why is this so difficult for you to understand, or accept?

[Jcarter]

Greenberg,

Again you side step the point. And around in circles we go.

You state "In fact, DPS is asserting, the opposite is true in this case: the costs of continued operation outweigh the benefits, and therefore the CPG should not be granted."

This factually incorrect. I amazed you can totally read something and then assert something that is entirely incorrect. THe DPS did not state the opposite is true. They stated that it couldn't be determined. There is a difference. You know it.

Moreover, you cite "will promote the general good of the State of Vermont." And you apply this to the economics of VY, when in fact it states nothing of the sort. It in fact very explicity says GENERAL GOOD, which could include but certainly isn't limited to cheap power. It could also include continue funds to the CEDF, or maintaining the grid, which has been state on authority that VY is critical towards doing so. You certainly are knowledgeable about the facts but you lack any type of logical thought. Mainly because you propensity to skew facts so grossly it's almost fiction.

[John Greenberg]

Murphy:
The DPS's position never changed. What I quoted was a final and summary statement of the position taken all the way through Docket 7440 (2008-2009). Nothing in the subsequent docket (7600) suggests that it has changed since that time frame.

However motivated, it suffices to demonstrate that legitimate arguments WERE being made before the Senate vote on grounds which are NOT subject to preemption in federal court, something which I interpret your remarks above to have declared impossible.

Since the Board case is a matter of public record, the Senate can be presumed to have been aware of what was argued there. In addition, many, if not most, of the same same points were raised in legislative testimony in any case.

The Senate voted against a bill which said, in part: "The general assembly determines that continued operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) for 20 years following its currently scheduled closure date of March 21, 2012 will promote the general welfare of this state." In other words, they voted against a bill phrased similarly to the granting of a CPG.

In sum, you argued that the Senate could not possibly have voted on any grounds other than safety, so I responded by establishing that there are indeed reasonable and reasoned arguments that can be made against continued operation, based on matters which are not subject to federal preemption.

It is my understanding that federal courts do not look at the motivation of individual members of a legislature in order to determine the meaning of legislation or whether it accords with constitutional strictures.

In this case, it is quite clear that the motivation could NOT have been shared by all of those voting. You've argued -- probably correctly -- that Peter Shumlin was motivated by his desire to be governor, and it is equally clear that Doug Racine and Susan Bartlett did NOT want that to occur, since, at the time of the vote, they were both running against him. And electing Peter governor is not likely to have motivated the seven Republicans in the body either. In sum, there was not ONE motivation shared by all. Indeed, it's pretty unlikely that there ever is, given that legislatures are political bodies.

If this question goes to court, the judge will be confronted with a bill on which a vote was taken, and will determine whether or not that bill was constitutional. He will NOT determine whether the arguments made were correct or reasonable, nor whether the politicians all had clean hands and pure hearts. In order to reach his judgment, he will, as I understand it, look first at the text of the bill, then at its legislative history, and then make a determination whether the bill does or does not comport with the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by Court precedents.

Let's assume, as you say, that Shumlin "was afraid that the economics might change and continued operations would be found economcally viable, that's why. So he decided to try to nail the coffin shut, with a power play ...." Proving that would NOT suffice to make your case in a court UNLESS you could also PROVE what follows, namely that the outcome was "a disguised vote on safety." I submit you have failed to make that case.

Finally, because you asked, I'll answer your last question: "Geez, why is this so difficult for you to understand, or accept?"

I don't accept your argument because I talked to almost every senator (28 or 29 out of 30) as well as most (140+ out of 150) members of the general assembly. I know what issues concerned them, because we discussed them, in some cases for a few minutes, but in more than a few cases, for hours. I also sent all of them research papers and spreadsheets I wrote, all of which concerned the economics of continued operations: pricing, energy alternatives, jobs, the Revenue Sharing Agreement, etc. None of these concerned preempted issues. (How many of them read my stuff, I cannot say. I know most of them received it.)

Many members were well aware of the issues that they are allowed to consider, and those which are preempted, because they were briefed on them very early on. Probably dozens of the legislators noted these in our conversations.

I also don't accept your argument because I read the 2000+ pages of testimony presented to the Public Service Board, and astonishingly enough, it's NOT about Peter Shumlin or nuclear safety, it's about precisely the issues the State of Vermont is supposed to be concerned with.

And finally, I don't accept your argument because I listened to and/or read dozens of hours of legislative testimony, reports, etc., NONE of which was on preempted topics.

But we've all agreed I'm a dense, naive simpleton, so what I do or don't accept matters to no one but me. I certainly don't expect it to matter to you.

[John Greenberg]

JCarter:

1) "This [is] factually incorrect." Read the whole brief yourself. Then show us all how I've misrepresented it. Or better still, call DPS and ask if I've misconstrued their argument. Please keep in mind that the reason we're talking about their brief in the first place is NOT to debate its substance, but rather to see whether or not there are reasonable arguments against continued operation of VY which pertain to a State's "traditional authority," and are therefore NOT preempted.

2) "Moreover, you cite "will promote the general good of the State of Vermont." And you apply this to the economics of VY, when in fact it states nothing of the sort. It in fact very explicity says GENERAL GOOD, which could include but certainly isn't limited to cheap power. It could also include continue funds to the CEDF, or maintaining the grid, which has been state on authority that VY is critical towards doing so."

You're absolutely right: there are, in fact, any number of considerations which could be and WERE brought to bear. The question we've been debating -- to which neither of your arguments is pertinent -- is whether or not the Senate vote is unconstitutional because it considered matters of "safety and the "nuclear aspects" of energy generation," rather than the areas of the "traditional authority" of the State such as those raised in the DPS quotes I've cited AND those that you raise as well.

You've just underscored the point that there are, indeed, many points that could be and were raised which do NOT fall within the ambit of federally preempted considerations.

[Jcarter]

"If this question goes to court, the judge will be confronted with a bill on which a vote was taken, and will determine whether or not that bill was constitutional. He will NOT determine whether the arguments made were correct or reasonable"

Greenberg, how will he determine if the bill is constitutional without determining if the arguments that the bill was based on were reasonable? Of course the court is going to determine the nature and motivation for the bill...

[John Greenberg]

JCarter: "Greenberg, how will he determine if the bill is constitutional without determining if the arguments that the bill was based on were reasonable?" By looking at the text of the bill and its legislative history, NOT by psychoanalyzing the members of the general assembly.

[Jcarter]

Rightttttttttttt because as everyone knows its not as if a politician would lie.....

John I envy you, I wish I lived in such an idealistic world as you. Alas, some of us have to live in reality else we would still be sitting a fire eating roasted squirrel on a spit.

As for your first response :

1.) I did point out how you misrepresented things. I have heard of selective hearing, I've never before witnessed selective reading, and to such a degree at that.

2.) Yes we have been talking about economics, but YOU , yes read that again John, YOU cited the GENERAL GOOD and represented it as being economics. Not me.

All I can say is this has been a shining of example for all to behold as a lesson in futility.

[John Greenberg]

JCarter.
I never said or suggested that politicians don't lie. I'm guessing that what you're talking about is my comment that the individual motivations of politicians are not matters likely to be considered in a federal preemption court case over the Vermont Yankee vote. The court must decide not whether politicians wanted to do the right thing or even if they did the right thing, but whether what they did was constitutional or not. Those are entirely different questions, and one has no bearing on the other.

Your other points are all about words which are not at all consequential to my argument. I am perfectly happy, therefore, to accept your suggestions about each.

Specifically:

1) The DPS brief is 75 pages long. I excerpted a few passages to make a simple point: namely, that it is possible NOT to support continued operations at VY without entering territory which is constitutionally preempted. I don't believe I misrepresented the brief in any way in doing that, but if it will make you feel better, add the word "demonstrated," so that the sentence that you've been attacking me over now reads: "In fact, DPS is asserting, the opposite is true in this case: the costs of continued operation outweigh the demonstrated benefits, and therefore the CPG should not be granted."

2) I used the word "economics" in the same way I thought Murphy did and for the same reason: namely, as a very broad characterization of matters which are NOT preempted. The similar words, with, I believe, the same intent, in the PG& E decision are "economic considerations." In fact, I was trying to talk about precisely the sorts of issues that you raised above ("It could also include continue funds to the CEDF, or maintaining the grid....") All of these issues are clearly within the constitutional authority of the state to consider, and therefore do NOT support a preemption case. That's all I've been arguing here. Therefore, if it will make you happy, I'm perfectly content to withdraw the word "economics."

3)The words "general good" are DPS's, and they appear to be quoting statute, but the same point pertains: this is NOT preempted territory.

In fact, NONE of these points we're now discussing are preempted issues. THAT is the point we've been arguing about, at least, that's what I've been addressing.

[Tim]

"On November 13, John Greenberg was asked to remove himself from his place of residence. (Greenberg's unseen wife slams door, only to reopen it and angrily hand John his saucepan) That request came from his wife. Deep down, he knew she was right, but he also knew that someday, he would return to her. With nowhere else to go, he appeared at the home of his childhood friend, JCarter. Sometime earlier, Carter's wife had thrown him out, requesting that he never return. Can two divorced men share an apartment without driving each other crazy?"

[Jcarter]

John you didn't say politicans don't lie, you said the judge won't psychoanalyze the bill. In fact they will look at it to determine it's validity knowing that in fact their are political motives involved.

1.) yes it is possible to deny VY a CPG based on territory that doesn't trigger federal pre-emption. No one is arguing that, the argument is that isn't the case here in reality. The general good of the state is such a reason. I think a reasonable person would conclude that cheap rates, the maintence of the New England grid, funds going to the CEDF, clean energy, hundreds of jobs, etc all qualify as positives in that regard. The negative being the fact that its a nuclear power plant, that negative is a only such in the eyes of people who are terrified of nuclear power. The court can not make a determination on that, case law supports that the courts acknowledge the validity of nuclear power. The "potential" nuclear accident and/or storage of spent nuclear material are not aspects that can come into play. The legislature repeated brought up the tritium leaks as reasoning. Of course they used the aspect of increased decommissioning and land use. I'm pretty sure that Entergy, the NRC, and other experts will shoot that full of holes rather quickly. Considering that Tritiated water had a biological half life of about 14 days you really can't argue that it is going to increase decomissioning costs for example.

The long and short of it is John, that yes there possible reasons why the legislature could bar the PSB from issuing a CPG, realistically IMO I don't believe they can justify it. It's clear you are against the continued operation of VY, but I think you take an overly idealistic stance that isn't based in reality.

Maybe a more prudent exercise would be for you John to take one minute and defend the opposite stance. What pitfalls do you see in a legal battle? Commerce clause? Pre-emption? Weakness in the Senates vote? Obama and Congress' pro-nuke stance affecting a judicial decision? Or is this just a lock for the PSB?

[John Greenberg]

JCarter:

1) "you said the judge won't psychoanalyze the bill. In fact they will look at it to determine it's validity knowing that in fact their are political motives involved." Ok, now at least we're talking about what I actually said.

But you're still missing the point. Rather than repeat myself, I'll try putting it differently. When laws are passed, "political motives" are "involved." If there are exceptions, they are surely very rare. If all laws passed with "political motives" were unconstitutional, then there would be no laws (or VERY few). Yet, in fact, there are MANY laws.

2) "yes it is possible to deny VY a CPG based on territory that doesn't trigger federal pre-emption.... The general good of the state is such a reason. I think a reasonable person would conclude that cheap rates, the maintence of the New England grid, funds going to the CEDF, clean energy, hundreds of jobs, etc all qualify as positives in that regard."

YOU think "a reasonable person would conclude ..." That's YOUR opinion. If it were universally shared, if everyone agreed that all of these "qualify as positives" then one might, as you argue, be left with only the fact that VY is a nuclear power plant, and therefore with only a possibly preemptable basis.

But, in fact, your opinion of these issues is NOT universally shared. I've already shown you that DPS did not agree in Docket 7440. Neither did GMP. Here's a header in their brief: "GMP DOES NOT SUPPORT RELICENSING BASED ON THE CURRENT RECORD, BECAUSE ENVY HAS FAILED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF SIGNIFICANT INCREMENTAL VALUE THAT SATISFIES THE ECONOMIC BENEFIT AND GENERAL GOOD CRITERIA." (p.15, caps in the original) The same brief makes it clear that GMP DOES support nuclear power.

In fact, MOST of the parties in Docket 7440 also disagreed. So did many legislators. (So do I, for whatever that's worth to anyone).

A court does not get to determine who is right about the merits of this argument. Instead, it gets to decide whether these issues are preempted, and you've just declared they aren't.

4) "The legislature repeated brought up the tritium leaks as reasoning." There were thousands of pages of testimony at the PSB and dozens of hours of testimony in the legislature BEFORE the tritium leaks were discovered. I counted SENATE votes in December, BEFORE the tritium leaks were announced in January. There were at least 21 solid "no" votes (all of whom did, in fact, vote no), and several more leaning "no" votes (all of whom also voted no). In other words, it's clear to me (again for whatever that's worth) that the tritium leaks did not change the outcome of the vote in any significant way.

Moreover, I think you'll find, if you look more carefully, that most of the discussion mentioning the leaks was not about tritium, but about management's misleading statements to Vermont authorities.

5) ". Considering that Tritiated water had a biological half life of about 14 days..." Biological life means that each exposure to tritium stays in the body for only 14 days. But tritium has a PHYSICAL half-life of 12.26 years, meaning that it will remain in the environment considerably longer that that. (The usual rule of thumb is 10x half-life). That, in turn, means that, as long as the tritium remains in the physical environment (for roughly 120 years), an individual drinking the water would be repeatedly re-exposed. Am I missing something?

6) "... you really can't argue that it is going to increase decomissioning costs for example." Then how do you account for the fact that VY is spending thousands of dollars to clean it up? If they don't get it all now, and there's some left after shutdown, why would you assume they would not be required to clean it up then? or that is would be any cheaper to do so?

In fact, that's precisely how this issue arose in the first place. Several parties in Docket 7440 asked Entergy officials about the possibility of underground pipes leaking and thereby raising decommissioning costs. Entergy's replies were false. All of this occurred MONTHS before the leaks were made public.

7) "Maybe a more prudent exercise would be for you John to take one minute and defend the opposite stance." Thanks for the advice. I've been doing just that for over 2 years now. Part of the reason I take the time to argue with you and others is to see if there are arguments I've missed.

[Jcarter]

John,

1.) I have no idea what your point is here regarding the topic

2.) Sure that's my opinion and while not universally shared there are plenty who do. GMP agree with your position is not a benefit, clearly they have motive as do CLF VPIRG and the other eco-freaks that have file briefs with the PSB.

4.) Irrelevant. You can't know or present in court "intent"
Moreover, saying the main issue was VY's statements were the cause would be pointless, the guy has been removed and problem solved. As a point to deny a CPG that is absolutely moot.

5.) You are confusing tritium and tritiate water. They have different reactivity and different half lives. Moreover, an individual wouldn't be exposed over and over as tritium radiation won't penetrate a layer of skin (or gut) tissue. If it can't enter your body you can't be exposed to it. You could absorb some tritiated water, but we've establised a very different half life for it. You are also exposed to radioactive P everytime you drink water, or swim near lake Champlain. There are all kinds of naturally occurring isotopes. Only the ignorant would dwell on this point very long, which explains Shumlin's fascination.

6.) they are trying to garner good will with the state.... how can you not see that?

7.) What are your arguments? I mean lets take the commerce clause for example, SCOTUS has determined that electrical generation falls under control of Congress due to the commerce clause. Congress has designated control of re-licensure/licensure and oversight of nuclear power plants to the NRC. The NRC has determined that VY can operate for another 20years. Where exactly does the state fit in on that one? Or let's discuss the so called General Good some more. Would failure of the NewEngland Grid due to lack of VY being in the best interest of the state... rolling blackout? Nope. Would the loss of nearly $10 Mill to the CEDF being good for the state? Nope. Would energy locked in at a rate 20% cheaper then the locked in contacted rate of HQ be good. You bet. How about the loss of 650 jobs in an economic downturn... that's not good.

The facts are there are many positives. What are the negatives? The decomission cost MAY not cover the total bill? Judges tend to frown upon projection, what ifs and maybe's.

[John Greenberg]

JCarter:
I have nothing new to say on the first 3 points. I could repeat what I've already said, but there's no point in doing so. As to your last point, if you don't know what my arguments are by now, you never will.

5) Re tritium and tritiated water. Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen, which contains extra protons. Chemically, it acts just like hydrogen, meaning that it combines with oxygen to form water. The product of that process is tritiated water. Tritiated water is what VY released. It has been found in wells, including a now disused drinking well on the property. People drink water from wells, and if they drink from a well which contains tritiated water, they are exposed to radiation. Since most people drink water every day, if the tritium (or tritiated water) remains in the well, they will be exposed every day. The physical half life of tritium is 12.26 years, meaning that this process can go on for approximately 120 years. While 1/2 of each day's dose remains in the body only 12 days (biological half-life), the dose is constantly renewed by drinking more water.

6) I don't know why you think this is relevant to anything we're discussing. Entergy is REQUIRED to clean up the leakage sooner or later. If it's sooner, it comes out of operating funds, which is not Vermont's problem, since the contract price to Vermont is fixed through the remainder of their license. Otherwise, it will come from decommissioning funds, increasing them. Before decommissioning is complete, and NRC releases Entergy from its license obligations, Entergy will be required to demonstrate that it has brought site levels of radiation to within specific limits; further, it must show that it has gotten levels to "as low as reasonably achievable" ("ALARA"). In practical terms of what we're discussing, the leaked tritiated water WILL need to be cleaned up, which is precisely why the issue came up at the PSB BEFORE the leaks were made public. Put differently, the only way this remediation will NOT affect the cost of decommissioning is if it has already been done beforehand.

[murphy]

@ greenberg and jcarter:

You can stop debating. Really. Jcarter isn't persuading Greenberg, and Greenberg isn't persuading me. I'm betting the federal courts will find preemption. And, if it comes down to it, they'll find that the state tried in bad faith to circumvent the 2002 MOU by subsequently removing the PSB's authority to decide the relicensing issue at the state level. It won't take a genius to see that the state has treated VY like a political punching bag and that the real motivation for the 2010 senate vote was "safety" -- a preempted issue.

Thank you and goodnight.

[Jcarter]

John, I am well aware of the actions of tritium. What you fail to recognize is that tritiated water and tritium are not the same. They have a different reactivity and they have different half lives. Moreover, people would be exposed if they were drinking from a well at Vermont Yankee. If you are, then well...I say let Darwin judge you.

6.) "Before decommissioning is complete, and NRC releases Entergy from its license obligations, Entergy will be required to demonstrate that it has brought site levels of radiation to within specific limits"

Thanks for this info John. It seems that this makes most of this moot. Entergy will be required to decomission the plant as determined by the NRC. Regardless of the money it costs Entergy. Why is the amount in the fund a concern. There is nothing that I am aware of that states Entergy is required only to decomission as far as the decomissioning fund allows.

Finally, John why do you not address the issues I bring up in 7.)? As you state you use this forum and others to make sure you haven't missed anything. Why do you deny others the same? Why not argue the points in short and concise points?

[Bungalow Benchly]

@Shay: I think it's time we settled this once and for all: "JCarter" vs. "John Greenberg" in a televised Pay Per View debate on Vermont Yankee, sponsored by Seven Days. You, "Todd for VT House," "Murphy," and "Jimmy" could serve as fact checkers and "Tim" could report from the sidelines with semi-related quotes. All proceeds would go to Japan tsunami relief. What do you say?!

[PeakVT]

Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen, which contains extra protons.

Extra neutrons. Specifically, two extra neutrons for a total of two neutrons.

What you fail to recognize is that tritiated water and tritium are not the same. They have a different reactivity and they have different half lives.

Incorrect. Tritium, whether a single atom or chemically combined with other atoms, has a nuclear half-life of 12.26 years.

[Jcarter]

Tritium when combined with other atoms is no longer tritium. Water is not hydrogen. Carbon dioxide is not Carbon. But, you are absolutely correct in that the half life doesn't changes, that's my bad. I was thinking of something else, more towards availability and I misspoke/misposted.

Regardless, if you aren't drinking from the well at VY you are going to be fine.

[gimmeabreak]

Greenberg, weren't you the one who was going on and on and on earlier about how baseload alternatives to VY were in fact being built in VT? You cited 2 biomass plants.

Then it came out that one plant was being dropped because of local opposition.

And now this:

http://www.wcax.com/global/story.asp?s=14392350

Now the single proposed plant will have to go through the local process AND ACT 250, which will be much more difficult, time-consuming, and expensive than simply going through PSB review. All of the "renewable energy" myopics in VT forget an immutable fact: Vermonters simply do not -- repeat DO NOT -- allow anything, much less power plants, to be built in Vermont. Ever.

[John Greenberg]

PeakVT: My bad. You're absolutely correct. Slip of the hand, so to speak: 2 extra neutrons.