Poll: Vermonters Say Yes to Vermont Yankee, Single-Payer Health Care

Tweet

Oh, Vermonters are a fickle bunch. A new poll finds that most Vermonters want Vermont Yankee to remain open and support Gov. Peter Shumlin's call to create a single-payer health care system.

Those are the latest, and final, results from a poll conducted late last month by Public Policy Polling out of North Carolina. The firm began to release its poll results last week. The final results were released this morning.

Among the last were miscellaneous questions PPP asked more than 1200 Vermonters related to Vermont Yankee, single-payer health care and same-sex marriage. They also asked what Vermonters thought of Sen. Patrick Leahy, Rep. Peter Welch and possible candidates running for Vermont Treasurer. The poll's margin of error was 2.8 percent.

According to PPP, Vermonters are closely divided on VY and health care: 40 percent support the new health care law while 35 percent are opposed and 25 percent remain unsure. The polling firm called it a "single payer health care" law, but the law doesn't establish a single-payer system. Rather it merely moves the state in that direction. The state would need to receive multiple waivers from the federal government, and come up with a way to finance it, before enacting the system.

Meanwhile, 45 percent of those polled believe Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon should continue to operate. Another 41 percent believe it should be shut down. Entergy is suing the state of Vermont to keep VY open beyond March 2012, when the plant's in-state license expires. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has agreed to let VY operate another 20 years. Entergy recently went ahead with the purchase of enough fuel to keep VY open until March 2013.

The issues broke largely on party lines with Democrats supportive of the health care law and opposed to VY. Republicans largely oppose the health care law and support VY. Independents support both the health care law and the power plant, tipping victory in each instance, PPP noted in its results.

Maybe Entergy should offer to pay a special health care "surcharge" in return for staying open a bit longer. Stranger things have happened.

Vermonters were asked about a major national issue that has already been settled in the Green Mountain State — same-sex marriage.

According to PPP, most Vermonters said legalizing same-sex marriage has had "no impact on their lives." Sixty percent said it's been a non factor for them personally; 22 percent said it's had a positive effect; and 18 percent said it's had a negative impact.

A strong majority — 58 percent — told PPP they are glad that same-sex marriage is legal, while 33 percent disagreed. And even among those who remain opposed to the law, 55 percent admitted its legalization has had no effect on their lives.

When PPP added civil unions to its survey question, the support for legal recognition of same-sex couples jumped to 79 percent: 55 percent prefer marriage and 24 percent prefer civil union, while 18 percent of Vermonters oppose any sorts of rights.

Finally, PPP asked who Vermonters might support in the race for state treasurer next year: Democratic appointee Beth Pearce or state Sen. Randy Brock (R-Franklin), who also served a stint as state auditor. Brock edged out Pearce 36-33, which is just outside the poll's margin of error. Of those polled, 31 percent were undecided. PPP called this potential race a "wash."

Previous PPP poll results have found that Sen. Bernie Sanders easily bests all GOP challengers next year. The pol that comes closest to knocking out Sanders is former Gov. Jim Douglas at 18 points behind the junior senator. But, don't get your hopes up: Douglas has already poo-pooed the notion of running against Sanders. If you recall, Douglas almost — almost — challenged Sanders for that Senate seat in 2006 and took a pass.

Likewise, Gov. Peter Shumlin is already well ahead of most potential challengers, though by slimmer margins than Sanders.

In a hypothetical rematch of the 2010 gubernatorial contest, Shumlin would beat Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie by a 48-40 margin. That's still not more than the 50 percent needed for Shumlin to be elected outright to the office, rather than being constitutionally appointed by the legislature. That's the good news.

The bad news for Shumlin is that his favorability rating has yet to crest above 50 percent — perhaps due to the policy issue split among the electorate noted above — and it lags behind that of Dubie's favorability.

According to PPP, 45 percent of voters view Shumlin favorably while 36 percent don't. Meanwhile, 48 percent of voters view Dubie favorably while 33 percent don't.

Comments

[Joffan]

I don't think the contrast in the opening paragraph shows fickleness. It shows that a goodly number of Vermonters are independently minded and not blind followers - that however much they like some of Shumlin's policies, they are willing to think about each issue and form their own opinions.

[dale tillotson]

Whatever happened to the 10 point package that Brian introduced at the beginning of his campaign last year?
Of course it could probably be reworded as the 10 ways to lose an election. Baffle your supporters, and bewilder the undecided.

[ward 2 resident]

Vermonters statistically prefer neither single payer nor Vermont Yankee given the margin of error.

I wish they had verification questions with polls. For instance, "Is Vermont Yankee: a) The state's minor league baseball who's home is at Centennial field b) A gay bar in Essex c) A nuclear power plant in Vernon or d) A train that connects White River to New York City?"

Then you'd get fun results like "80% of Vermonters know VY is a power plant, but 2% believed it was a train, 7% a baseball team and 13% a gay bar."

[Sue]

Keep VY running. We need the juice.

[murphy]

@ Sue:

The worst part of Shumlin's election-oriented crusade against VY is that it has scared the VT utilities away from buying any power from VY, while at the same time it is entirely possible that the federal court will say that VT has no business trying to stop it from continuing to run.

Then you'd have almost the worst of both worlds: VY continues to operate for another 20 years under its federal license, but Vermont gets no power from it. (We'd still get employed workers and tax dollars and other benefits from the operating plant, so it would be better than nothing, but we wouldn't get the biggest benefit: long-term contracts for cheaper electricity bought from an in-state producer that doesn't burn coal or oil.)

[one_vermonter]

"The worst part of Shumlin's election-oriented crusade against VY is that it has scared the VT utilities away from buying any power from VY"

You overlook the fact that Entergy Nuclear didn't have the most competitive price. Seabrook had a better price, so they got the contract.

No 'benifit' comes from buying power from Entergy when the price they were offering was not competitive.

[Tom Buchanan]

Responding to "Murphy:"

I don't think Entergy ever planned to sell Vermont utilities power at anything much less than 10% off wholesale, and that would have been for a small amount of power. That was their position at the outset in late 2007, and they appear to have stuck with it. The other point worth keeping in mind is that Entergy saw the primary contract benefit in the Revenue Share Agreement and was willing to trade that out for a better price on electricity, but it appears Entergy was not willing to enhance the RSA with an additional PPA.

All along Entergy has had ample opportunity to recognize the issues the legislature (and the PSB) finds important, and to negotiate an MOU that would tip the balance in favor of continued operation. Entergy has been unwilling to make the necessary concessions, and thus hasn't been able to get legislative approval. The ball has been (and still is) in their court.

[murphy]

"Only" not much more than 10% off wholesale? What the . . .??? In addition to the taxes they pay, the community donations they make, and the Revenue Sharing Agreement? You also want them to give Vemont's entire power need (1,000+ MW) for free??? Funny, you aren't asking the same thing of the retail utilities.

And you lay all the blame for the current impasse on VY, essentially because they won't give the price discounts you think they should. Sorry, I must disagree. They've made some stupid mistakes, but I believe the current lack of PPAs is due to the fact that they've been faced with nothing but hostility, taunting, and antagonism, and been used as a scapegoat by an unscrupulous politician and his cronies and certain media outlets, out of all proportion to the mistakes they've made. That does not make for a good negotiating climate for PPAs. Nevertheless, they made an incredibly good offer to VEC, and it was rejected by the VEC board (whose attitudes toward VY I believe were affected by Shumlin's and VPIRG's constant attacks on VY). No, I believe the primary if not sole reason for no PPAs with Vermont utilities is obviously the fact that no utility can negotiate a PPA with a producer that Gov. Shumlin taunts and insults every single day and is just seething to shut down (even when his own cabinet people have to retract his statements the very next day).

Which brings me back to my point. We could end up with a situation where we host VY, but do not get the benefit of good long-term power contracts with them, thanks to the very people who are trying to shut them down (illegally, I believe). The extra super-irony is that if they win their lawsuit and are allowed to keep running, and Vt. utilities end up buying power from "the grid," some of those electrons in the grid will be generated by VY.

[Tim]

Thank goodness we are getting safe, reliable nuclear power-from New Hampshire.The Governor has convinced me that Vermonters are too fooking stupid to handle matches, let alone uranium.

[Tom Buchanan]

@Murphy: When Entergy first sought the new CPG they agreed that their cost of production was about 2 cents per kwh; the contracted sale price was about 4 cents per kwh; and the market price was about 8 cents per kwh. Those numbers have all flexed a bit, but the relationship appears as valid today as when Entergy applied for the CPG. Supporters of the plant have drawn from Entergy talking points and have leaned heavily on the financial benefit of the existing PPA, and the value of cheap electricity. The current contract provides substantial benefits to Entergy, and is favored by a many Vermonters. Given the support for continued operation is so heavily weighted by the current availability of cheap electricity, it’s reasonable for the legislature to seek a similar value in the future. Entergy hasn’t even come close. Essentially, the company is relying on the current contract to incite public support, but is not offering to deliver that value in the future.

The actual make-up of a favorable contract could vary. It might favor large sales at a near market price, or small sales and a steep discount. It could be weighted toward stability, or it could weight toward volatility with a premium rate benefit. There are lots of options available, but Entergy appears to have been unwilling to match the value of the current deal that the constituents of the legislators find so appealing.

Likewise, Entergy could have addressed the economic elements of reliability with an assurance of payments based on the RSA even if the plant didn’t operate. Since the future reliability of the plant is in such doubt, such a guarantee would have alleviated the uncertainty of the unit contingent deal, and would have favored continued operation. Entergy again leans on the past, but fails to address the very legitimate concerns about future reliability, and has failed to address the public expectation for a substantial RSA benefit going forward.

Even apart from rates and the RSA, Entergy could have promised to meet its commitment to fully decommission the plant (which it has backed away from), or could have assured decommissioning when the plant shuts down, an offer that would have provided substantial benefit to the local workforce. But again, Entergy didn’t do that. Nor did they provide actual assurance that the condenser would be replaced, or that a 100% transformer would be available on stand-by. Essentially, Entergy was seeking a guarantee from the state that it could operate for 20 years, but provided no meaningful assurance of future operation.

There were multiple avenues for Entergy to travel that would have enticed legislators to vote in favor of continued operation, but Entergy made a strategic decision to ignore legislative interests. That’s why we are in the current situation. If Entergy were to address the very real concerns of the public and the legislature, they could still win approval. The vote that must happen within the legislature is by the General Assembly, and isn’t subject to a veto. That minimizes the role of Governor Shumlin, who incidentally wasn’t governor when Entergy began the failed contract process that hasn’t met the interests of Vermont utilities. Most of those negotiations occurred long before Peter Shumlin was elected.

A deal on a PPA may still be within reach, and even if that horse has left the barn, there are plenty of other sweeteners that Entergy could offer to bring the legislature on its side. But for that to happen, Entergy needs to work within the legislative channels, and pull back the assault they launched in federal court.

It really is Entergy's game to win or lose. The workers that value their jobs so highly need to apply pressure to the company to work out a solution to save those jobs. Entergy can do that.

[murphy]

I couldn't disagree more with your view that the current impasse is "Entergy's game to win or lose." You can attempt to juggle the numbers all you want about the price of power, but there's no business case for NOT allowing the plant to continuing to operate -- even if for no other reason than to get the taxes, the employment, and the RSAs.

The legislative record shows that Shumlin used to be a big fan of VY, even long AFTER it became owned by the company he now calls "Entergy Louisiana" (a name he never used until recently, even though the plant has had the same ownership since 2002). He wanted to run for Governor in 2010 and he put his finger up to the wind and realized that a good portion of the Democratic primary base was opposed to relicensing VY. All of a sudden he became VY's biggest hater, and launched an all-out assault on the plant and its ownership (exploiting their dumb mistakes). Your insistence that it's still "VY's game to win or lose" is naive to the point of being delusional. Shumlin will not and cannot now suddenly change his mind about allowing the plant to continue operating. Even if VY offered their electricity for free to all VT utilities for the next 20 years, the Shumlin Administration has already committed itself to a policy of "shut it down now" that they will not and cannot back away from. Shumlin forced the preemption showdown in federal court, not VY. All he had to do was allow the PSB to do its job, as the 2002 MOU called for. And if the federal courts rule that Vermont's state senate vote against VY was the disguised "safety" vote that a lot of people know it was, and thereby violated federal pre-emption, the least surprised person in Vermont will be Shumlin.

So your suggestion that Entergy's asserting its legal rights against the political bullies in Montpelier is an "assault they launched in federal court" reflects such a naive or biased viewpoint that it's not worth responding to. The assault has been by Shumlin and his political hangers-on against VY, for purely electoral political reasons, and not the other way around.

[John Greenberg]

Murphy's trying to have it both ways.

First, he argues that "the current lack of PPAs is due to the fact that they've been faced with nothing but hostility, taunting, and antagonism, and been used as a scapegoat by an unscrupulous politician and his cronies and certain media outlets." But, then in his next post, he turns around to acknowledge that the "unscrupulous politician" in question "used to be a big fan of VY, even long AFTER it became owned by the company he now calls "Entergy Louisiana".

PPA negotiations were largely conducted in 2008-2009. They were supposed to have terminated no later than September 2009 (a PSB-set date for contracts to be presented). Energy costs during that period were projected to be in the 9+ cents range, rising sharply, and estimates were floated of the RSA being worth over $1 billion. There was no climate of hostility back then, and certainly nothing preventing Entergy from offering a favorable price. Indeed, Entergy could have locked in a price THEN which would have looked incredibly cheap (and which NOW would look incredibly dear), assuring themselves of prodigious profits and almost certain legislative approval.

The fact is, as Tom pointed out, they declined to do so. The hostility to which Murphy is now trying to appeal, is one of the RESULTS, not the CAUSE of Entergy's failure to offer favorable prices.

[murphy]

"But, then in his next post, he turns around to acknowledge that the "unscrupulous politician" in question "used to be a big fan of VY, even long AFTER it became owned by the company he now calls "Entergy Louisiana"."

Jeezuz, what is so hard to understand about the fact that a certain politician who has long wanted to be Governor changed his attitude 180 degrees about VY when he realized that a significant portion of the Democratic primary voters (but never the state as a whole) favored shutting it down? Just what is so freakin hard to understand about that, Greenberg? And given that we're talking about a particular politician who has a notorious reputation for saying X yesterday and Y today (documented in 7D and just about everywhere else), just what exactly is it that you don't understand about an unscrupulous politician doing a crass about-face? Please, get a reality-clue, will ya?

[John Greenberg]

I DO understand it Murphy.

You miss my point entirely. The contradiction that I pointed out is your failure to note that Shumlin's FIRST position did NOTHING to make negotiations difficult, while by the time he took his SECOND position, negotiations had basically ended.

In 2008, Shumlin was NOT opposed to VY, nor were most legislators. THAT's when Entergy and the utilities were negotiating. There was NO climate of hostility. That was Tom's point, which you attempted to refute by pointing out that 2 years later, in 2010, Shumlin changed his posture.

Just like Shumlin, you're having it both ways for the convenience of your "argument."

[Murphy]

A short Google search shows that VT Senate President Pro Tem and aspiring Governor Shumlin was publicly caling for the shutdown of VT Yankee at least as early as 2009 -- WHEN NEGOTIATIONS OVER PPAs WERE ONGOING. And I believe a more thorough search of the record will show that his antagonism toward Vt. Yankee started earlier than that.

So at a time when the Vt. utilities are trying to negotiate PPAs with Vt. Yankee, you have Vt.'s second-ranking political leader and possible future Governor telling the utilities: don't negotiate seriously with VY.

And you and Buchanan are trying to blame VY for the fact that there are no PPAs. Of course.

[Tom Buchanan]

@Murphy: You are really missing the point. Utilities serving the state of Vermont currently have a long term power purchase agreement that supporters of the plant find attractive. Entergy wishes to continue operating, but does not want to offer a similar PPA into the future. Indeed, Jay Thayer’s written testimony of February 11, 2009 states that a PPA should be at market rates, or should otherwise use the value of the RSA, and he repeated that under questioning at the technical hearings on May 21, 2009 as follows:

"CHAIRMAN VOLZ: I just want you to confirm that you're willing to do a purchase power agreement with Vermont utilities for some amount of power from the plant going into the future, but it needs to be at market rates.
MR. THAYER: That's correct."

That was long before Senator Shumlin became governor. The state is looking for value, and Entergy is refusing to deliver. That’s not because of anything Governor Shumlin has said or done, and in fact, the Douglas administration also opposed continued operation without a substantial benefit from a PPA.

Indeed, the Initial Brief filed by the Department of Public Service on July 17, 2009 (under Governor Douglas) argues that without a PPA the plant doesn’t serve the “general good.” Here is the relevant DPS statement from the Initial Brief at the conclusion of the technical hearings:

“…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…”

And finally the conclusion of the Department of Public Service (Initial Brief, Docket 7440, July 17, 2009, page 72):

“For the reasons set forth in the above brief, the Board should conclude that Petitioners have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that continued operation of VY would promote the public good and deny Petitioners requested relief. In the event the Board concludes otherwise, it is imperative that the Board adopt all of the recommended conditions described in this brief to ensure that there are no undue impacts to the public interest as a result of extended operations.”

Well before Governor Shumlin was elected we had Entergy declining to provide a PPA with meaningful value, and the state (under Governor Douglas) arguing that the plant shouldn’t continue to operate without one. This isn’t a Shumlin problem.

[murphy]

Have you been privy to the negotiations? How do you know that the Vt. utilities were asking for anything remotely reasonable?

Much more fundamental, however, is the question of why this isn't all before the PSB? If the prices being offered by VY aren't "in the public good," then the PSB would deny the relicensure.

We all know the answer of why Shumlin wouldn't let the PSB decide the issue: because he wanted a public Senate vote for his gubernatorial campaign.

[John Greenberg]

It's obvious that Murphy wants at all costs to blame Peter Shumlin and to exonerate Entergy, come what may. That's his prerogrative.

It is worth noting, however, that Shumlin was not in the legislature when it unanimously passed the bill REQUIRING a legislative vote. Jim Douglas was governor then, and he signed the bill, despite his ardent support for relicensing. The only opposition Entergy presented to the bill was based on its being "redundant" with a bill which Entergy itself had proposed and which had passed the previous year, when Shumlin was also absent. (That bill required a legislative vote to approve further use of dry cask storage, without which, since the fuel pool is full, Entergy needed for further operations).

It is also worth noting that the negotiations we're discussing here are anything but complex. There are really just 2 moving parts: the amount of power and the price. There is therefore no reason for negotiations to be prolonged, certainly not over a period of years.

I was not a party to the negotiations, but it's pretty hard to avoid the obvious inference based on the public record: namely, that Entergy's offers were higher than the utilities wanted to pay. There is also evidence in the amount offered by Jay Thayer in his letter to the PSB (115 MW vs 280 MW) that Entergy was also trying to force the utilities to contract for a good deal less power than they wanted. Both of them were on record as wanting to buy less than they are buying currently, but not THAT much less. Indeed, GMP stated publicly that it wanted 95 MW, dropping in 5 year increments. Entergy's offer would have left only 20 MW for CVSP AND VEC, clearly less than they wanted to buy.

In short, Tom's points are quite valid, despite Murphy's refusal to acknowledge them. So is the point I made above, which Murphy is missing entirely.

During the time period in question (2008-2010), market price expectations changed dramatically. Had Entergy offered an approximately 1/3 discount from market price expectations in 2008, it's pretty hard to believe that Vermont utilities would have turned it down. Yet that price would have been either identical or very close to the price which, 2 years later, they DID turn down (i.e. 6.1 cents for 2012). (For the record, that same price would be well ABOVE market today).

Entergy wanted to keep operating the plant; it was in ENTERGY's interest to make that happen. If Murphy and Entergy want to blame Peter Shumlin, they're free to do so, but that isn't going to get them a CPG. While both utilities made it clear both publicly, and privately to me, that they supported VY's continuing operations, it's frankly no skin off their backs that we've ended up where we now are. They've met their needs (ironically, at a lower price than they ever could have hoped for in 2008); Entergy has come up short.

What Tom and I are pointing out is simply this: had Entergy behaved differently when it mattered, it is highly probable that we would be having a completely different discussion today.

As long as we've gotten this far into the weeds, I'll make one final point. Entergy could have waited until AFTER the legislative vote to propose the Enexus spinoff. With the deal pending during legislative deliberations, I know for certain that it DID change legislative votes. Vince Illuzzi basically said so in a Rutland Herald editorial in the fall of 2009, but there are at least 3 other senators, otherwise supportive of VY, whose "no" vote as at least partially based on their distaste for the Enexus deal. (I know that because they said so). There may well be others.
At the same time, it's hard to see how delaying the spinoff proposal would have made any practical or legal difference in its outcome. In short, Entergy's timing was another significant strategic blunder (for which I'm sure Murphy will find a reason to blame Peter Shumlin).

Senator Brock was absolutely correct, when he said during the 2010 debate that Entergy was its own worst enemy.

[murphy]

"What Tom and I are pointing out is simply this: had Entergy behaved differently when it mattered, it is highly probable that we would be having a completely different discussion today."

Feel free to believe that if you want to. It's nothing but speculation on your part that fits with your well-established, pre-existing anti-VY bias.

I believe the historical record shows that VY made dumb but irrelevant mistakes, and that VY's former good legislative friend made an electorally-inspired strategic decision to turn 180 degrees, throw in his lot with VPIRG and Arnie Gunderson and Bob Stannard and "grannies against nukes" and all the other nuts out there, and villify and scapegoat VY (can you say "Entergy Louisiana" -- a name Shumlin never used until he was running for Governor in 2009?) and that once Shumlin decided that VY would never, ever, ever be relicensed under his watch, there realistically could be no power deals between VY and the Vermont utilities. Shumlin has made it quite clear that he believes VY should be shut down because it is unsafe. So how can you possibly say that Shumlin would have let an unsafe (in his mind) plant run IF the power pricing was right? Your "highly probable" speculation is internally inconsistent.

But never mind. Just keep repeating to yourself that Shumlin's partisan electoral ambitions had nothing to do with the current situation.

[John Greenberg]

"Just keep repeating to yourself that Shumlin's partisan electoral ambitions had nothing to do with the current situation." I never said any such thing. Tom Buchanan came closer to suggesting this, but he can speak for himself.

I merely noted what you note, yet again. Shumlin's position on this issue CHANGED some time in 2009. There is nothing "internally inconsistent" about noting that change.

The answer to your other question is identical: 'Shumlin has made it quite clear that he believes VY should be shut down because it is unsafe. So how can you possibly say that Shumlin would have let an unsafe (in his mind) plant run IF the power pricing was right?"

I'm NOT saying he would do so now. Clearly, he wouldn't and can't politically. (It's possible that Tom disagrees with me on this point). But that was NOT true before he decided to make this a central tenet of his campaign for governor, which is the time frame we've been talking about.

I'll be more specific. Peter Shumlin was my senator before he was governor. A friend and I met with him as constituents in July 2008 to discuss this issue. We discussed many VY-related issues, almost all economic. I came away from this meeting convinced that, if Entergy offered the right deal and the politics looked right to him, Peter would support the deal. That, of course, is just my opinion. All I can say factually is that nothing he said to us contradicted that statement or made me comfortable at the time that he would oppose relicensing come what may.

Finally, I'm getting a bit tired of hearing about my "well-established, pre-existing anti-VY bias." First, I've never made any bones about where I'm coming from: I've been an anti-nuclear activist for 25+ years, and have never suggested otherwise.

Second, I have made a considerable effort, here and elsewhere, to stick to the facts in what I write, or, when not doing so, to acknowledge openly that I'm expressing my opinion. I have been challenged dozens of times on my facts, and have, in all but 2 instances that I can recall, documented them and provided sources. If memory serves me well, there was one occasion on this site where I got it wrong, and immediately admitted my error. Maybe it's time that you and some of your colleagues do the same.

Third, isn't it time for you to admit to your own completely unacknowledged PRO-VY bias? And once you do, you can stop repeating your mantra about me and others. Few of us who have given this issue any thought at all are unbiased or objective.

Nuclear power is a divisive issue, and those who've considered it with any care mostly come down on one side or the other. Let me put it this way. I can't think of anyone I know who is not on one side or the other of this issue: we're all partisans and the sooner we admit it and move on, the better.

[murphy]

From your fifth paragraph: ". . . and the politics looked right to him . . ."

Amen to that.

As far as admitting that you've been an anti-nuclear activist for 25+ years, your open admission doesn't solve what I view as the problem. It's not just that you have an opinion and are entitled to it (a proposition that I would agree with). It's that your bias serves as a filter for deciding which facts are relevant and which are not, and for interpreting the ones that make it through your filter.

You were not privy to the negotiations between VY and the utilities. You have absolutely no idea what bargaining positions the utilities took -- how much power they asked for, at what price, and for how long. Your theory that if VY had been more forthcoming in PPA negotiations in 2009, Shumlin would have allowed the PSB to go forward with VY's relicensure application is an utter and total fantasy; a fantasy that is not supported by any known facts and is contrary to the political reality of Vermont; a fantasy that is based on your personal interpretation of a conversation you allegedly had with a politican who is already a legend in Vermont for speaking out of both sides of his mouth (to put it nicely); and a fantasy that of course fits nicely with your belief that VY is the bad guy and Shumlin is the good guy.

I am not biased in favor of VY. I am biased against political dogma of any kind, which certainly includes the anti-nuke religion in Vermont, and against the unscruplousness of certain politicians who exploit these dogmas for crass electoral purposes.

Good luck.

[John Greenberg]

Thanks, Murphy, for telling me what I think. It's always nice to know that I can count on someone like you -- completely unbiased, objective, and ever attentive to the facts -- to know better than I do what I think. But just for the record, I have not suggested here or elsewhere that Peter Shumlin is the good guy in all this, and even though I'm a nuclear opponent, I'm really not "blaming" VY.

And no, I was not privy to the negotiations; I said just that above.

What I am saying -- now for the third time -- is that if Entergy had successfully negotiated contracts in 2008 or earlier, it would have served THEIR interests. Specifically, they would probably have gotten legislative approval to move forward, and if favorable power contracts were in place, PSB approval as well. I suggested that contracts COULD easily have been negotiated in 2008 OR EARLIER, because electricity market prices were high and expected to go only higher. (Nothing prevented Entergy from beginning negotiations on these contracts as early as they wished).

Now, let's review the facts as we know them. As Tom reminds us above, Entergy relied heavily on the supposedly HUGE value of the RSAs. They said so in their public pronouncements, in testimony to the PSB and in testimony to the legislature. In 2008, if I'm not mistaken, everyone but me assumed that the RSAs would provide hundreds of millions of dollars of value to Vermont ratepayers. (I argued that the rate value would be close to zero, which right now, looks like a pretty good guess, and that the only value would be as an insurance policy.)

Meanwhile, the utilities said both in private and public that they supported relicensing, and that they wanted to purchase power (albeit a bit less than presently) from Entergy.

All that said, it is possible that Entergy proposed a great deal and the utilities said no to it, either because they were consistently lying to everyone (including to the PSB under oath) or just out of sheer perversity. It's possible, but not really very plausible. Everything I've seen, read, and heard (including direct discussions with the utilities) suggests that Entergy made no such proposal.

Now, let's look in more detail at your explanation concerning the political climate.

In particular, let's go back to mid-legislative session 2009, when Jim Douglas and Entergy were putting heavy pressure on the legislature to hold a vote despite the fact that there were no contracts. Unless you believe that this was an act of political suicide, it's pretty hard to avoid the inference that neither Entergy nor Douglas would have been putting on the pressure for a vote at that time if they believed the outcome would be negative, regardless of how Peter Shumlin felt on the matter.

That, in turn, suggests that your political climate theory was WRONG at that point: the utilities would have been swimming WITH the political climate if they had assented to a deal, not against it.

But unless you have some evidence that the legislature was against VY before it was for it, before it was against it, this inference is perfectly consistent with MY suggestion that the political climate was NOT opposed to a reasonable deal at that time OR at any earlier time.

As a response to the pressure, Shumlin and Smith took the position that it would be foolhardy for the legislature to take a vote as important as this one in the absence of key, pertinent information: namely, the future price of VY power. So they said they WOULD hold the vote during that session, but ONLY if power contracts were presented by a given date, after which, they argued, the legislature would not have adequate time to consider the issue. The deadline passed with no contracts, and no vote was held.

Perhaps Shumlin had already decided to oppose VY by then and his motivation in delaying the vote was to prevent being steamrolled by the governor and his colleagues. Or perhaps, as it appeared to me at the time, he was simply keeping his options open. What's clear is that if his position HAD already changed, HE didn't feel that he had the votes to kill relicensing, and THAT again contradicts YOUR theory that the political climate was what killed these negotiations, and is completely consonant with mine.

Clearly, by Feb. 2010, the political climate in Vermont HAD changed and the Senate vote confirmed that. Actually, that change was already apparent by the time Jay Thayer's letter to the PSB was released in December of 2009.

So, at some point between spring,2009 and the end of that year, the political climate in Vermont changed, as did Shumlin's position. (What a coincidence!) Meanwhile, electricity market prices COLLAPSED, changing expectations from the 9 cents range for 2012 to the high 5 cent to low 6 cents range, making it MUCH more difficult for Entergy to present a favorable price than it had been earlier. The 6.1 cents price which we KNOW, on the public record, Entergy offered, would have looked like a MUCH better deal in late 2008 than it did in late 2009.

In sum, we have 2 theories: yours is not consonant with any reasonable interpretation of ANY of the facts until sometime after around March of 2009: it flies in the face both of high power rates in the markets AND of the political climate up to that date.

Mine, on the other hand, is consonant with ALL of the known facts: namely, that the economic climate for negotiations was exceedingly favorable for Entergy through January 2009, and the political climate at least a few months longer. At some point during in 2009, both the economic and political changed, clearly worsening Entergy's position. (Again, it's not much of a reach to infer that the change in the political climate was DUE to the change in both the economic/rate climate and the fact that negotiations were clearly not going anywhere fast.)

[murphy]

"What I am saying -- now for the third time -- is that if Entergy had successfully negotiated contracts in 2008 or earlier, it would have served THEIR interests."

Um, why is it "Entergy's" burden, and not the utilities' burden, or at least both sides' burden, to successfully negotiate contracts? Or, is what you mean, that it was Entergy's burden to conclude a deal by just accepting whatever demand the utulities may have been making? Welcome to your bias, sir.

And, no, you needn't have repeated -- for the third time -- your theory that if VY had successfully negotiated contracts with the Vermont utlities VY would be relicensed by now and we'd all be happy. We heard it the first time. We get your theory. And I believe it's fantasy. Repeating it three times or more doesn't make it any less a fantasy.

BTW, your recitation of the relevant history (as you see it) only proves that by the beginning of the legislative session in January, 2009, if not earlier, the political climate against VY was already so hostile that Shumlin and Smith felt at liberty to attempt to interfere with and minipulate the PRIVATE contract negotiations between VY and the utilities. In the first place, Shumlin had absolutely no business and no reason to put a gun to VY's head. Second, there was no rational basis for the so-called contract deadline. It was completely arbitrary and artificial. There was no reason whatsoever for political leaders to interfere with the negotiations and not allow them to run their natural course, after which time the PSB would, as normal, decide if the proposed contracts met the public good. The only reason for imposing an artifical deadline was: 1) so that Shumlin would have an excuse to hold a vote to shut VY down; 2) to tell the utilities: beware, we may not relicense the party you are negotiating with, and therefore you'd better be negotiating alternative contracts with other generators; and 3) to convey the message to VY: we might not relicense you (by holding a vote about safety that we will later pretend was not about safety). At absolute best, he interfered where he had no business interfering. At worst, he doomed the entire process.

You can keep believing your fantasy that if only VY had concluded contracts we'd all now be looking at PPAs and that VY would be relicensed and that the current impasse is all VY's fault. And whether or not conditional contracts had been reached, the 2009 Legislature was owned and controlled by VPIRG, and aspiring gubernatorial candidate Pete I-need-to-use-VY-as-a-political-punching-bag-to-win-the-Democratic-nomination Shumlin was going to try to shut VY down.

Please don't repeat for a fourth or fifth time your theory that everything is all VY's fault.

Thanks.

[Shay Totten]

We interrupt this comment thread to bring you this newsflash: Today, Gov. Peter Shumlin issued a press release related to Vermont Yankee WITHOUT mentioning "Entergy Louisiana." I believe that is a first.

The comment came in response to the finding of tritium on the shores of the Connecticut River.

His statement: “I am very concerned about the latest findings from the Vermont Health Department. Confirmation that tritium has reached the shoreline of the Connecticut River is further evidence of the immediate need for more extraction wells and increased monitoring of the situation.”

We return to the comment thread - already in progress.

[murphy]

But was it the Vermont shore or the NH shore?

[John Greenberg]

Murphy:

1) "why is it "Entergy's" burden, and not the utilities' burden, or at least both sides' burden, to successfully negotiate contracts?" Because in this instance, Entergy had more of an interest in doing so than the utilities, since their continued existence depended on it, and the utilities had no such dependency. That's why. Entergy certainly had the option to reject this "burden" and negotiate as though they faced no such threat, and they chose to do so. All I'm saying is that it was a dumb choice, from THEIR point of view. From my perspective, I'm delighted they chose the course they did.

2) "... your theory that if VY had successfully negotiated contracts with the Vermont utlities VY would be relicensed by now and we'd all be happy." Just for the record, YOU'D be happy. I wouldn't.

3) "... by the beginning of the legislative session in January, 2009, if not earlier, the political climate against VY was already so hostile that Shumlin and Smith felt at liberty to attempt to interfere with and minipulate the PRIVATE contract negotiations between VY and the utilities.? Evidence? To my knowledge: NONE. Counter evidence: why would Entergy and Douglas be demanding a vote if the climate was as hostile as you suggest?

2) "Second, there was no rational basis for the so-called contract deadline. It was completely arbitrary and artificial." The deadline was in relation to a legislative vote demanded by Douglas and Entergy. It was perfectly rational, and totally normal.

The respective leaders of each house of the Vermont legislature set deadlines, including crossover dates, for most if not all legislation in every session. That's part of their job as leaders.

Shumlin and Smith did NOT "interfere" with negotiations; they told everyone when they needed a key piece of information in order to schedule a vote demanded by Entergy and Douglas. The deadline, which was announced in February, was well into the legislative session, NOT in January. It passed, but negotiations continued: the utilities all so testified. Where's the interference?

3) "not allow them to run their natural course, after which time the PSB would, as normal, decide if the proposed contracts met the public good." Negotiations DID run their natural course, and the PSB DID continue, as normal, to hold hearings, take testimony, and receive final briefs and reply briefs from the parties. The PSB is precluded by a 2006 law from issuing a "final decision" in the absence of a legislative vote.

4) "The only reason for imposing an artificial deadline was: 1) so that Shumlin would have an excuse to hold a vote to shut VY down; 2) to tell the utilities: beware, we may not relicense the party you are negotiating with, and therefore you'd better be negotiating alternative contracts with other generators; and 3) to convey the message to VY: we might not relicense you (by holding a vote about safety that we will later pretend was not about safety)." Talk about fantasies!!

Other than your ignoring all of the known facts and creating new ones, you have a great theory going. Keep at it.

[murphy]

Ignore.

[Alex Barnham]

I am suspect of polling...so you questioned a small group of Vermonters and said the results are the voice of all Vermonters? This is just more media trash and disinformation. Propaganda is result of polls taken without disclosing ALL the information analyzed. Will the propagandists give us that info? No! They want to sway opinion. Period!!!