Get facts right on Yankee
Toolbox
Published: February 22, 2009
One must wonder if the telephones are working at the Rutland Herald and the Times Argus, because the lead editorial on Feb. 15, titled “A New Form of Blackmail,” could have been resolved if the author had only bothered to call and ask some basic questions. Instead, the lack of due diligence resulted in a piece that is distorted and is missing important facts about the situation dealing with the reauthorization of Vermont Yankee in Vernon.
To clarify, Vermont statutes authorize the operation of a generator, owned by in-state utilities or a merchant owner such as Entergy, based on a finding of public good. To determine whether a project is in “the public good,” it is important to focus on power production and the relationship of that power to Vermont ratepayers. As a matter of policy, we see no reason to extend permits to existing or proposed generation projects in Vermont, unless the power flows in some way to our ratepayers. Absent that connection our utilities can simply contract for power from a plant outside Vermont and let someone else contend with the effects of the project.
Just in the past year we took this stance with the wind project proposed by First Wind in Sheffield. It remains a consistent application of this policy when the State also told Entergy officials at the beginning of their petition that finding value in a power supply agreement would be a central focus.
The author’s reliance on the word “price” to describe a power agreement also misleads the reader. Department witness David Lamont describes in some detail the weaknesses of the Revenue Sharing Agreement mentioned in the editorial. The simple fact is that ultimate value of this arrangement is far too speculative for us to consider it part of public good. That is even more of a reason to find value in a power supply agreement. We are pleased that on this point we are in agreement with legislative leadership.
It was interesting that the editorial stated in part “if Entergy wants to keep operating Vermont Yankee, it has little choice but to meet the now-public demands of the governor and the department.” The Speaker of the House and President Pro Tem of the Senate have been quoted in this same newspaper stating that a legislative vote would not go forward without the presence of a power agreement (“Lawmakers put Yankee on notice” Feb. 12). We believe it is vital on this very significant issue that we are in principle alignment with the legislative leadership. While our specific approaches may vary, we both seek first to assure that the plant is safe and reliable. Next, that the long-term risk of decommissioning is manageable, and finally that the power supply arrangement for Vermont consumers is very favorable. Why else host any generation project? The consideration of extending the license of Vermont Yankee is perhaps one of the most important decisions this Administration will be a part of and it is a matter we don’t take lightly. Therefore we believe strongly this consideration should be based solely on the facts, be discussed broadly, and that we deliberate in a bipartisan matter to ensure that the public interest is preserved. Such decisions need to be made with accurate and informed information – this editorial provided neither.
David J. O’Brien
Commissioner
Vermont Department of Public Service
42