Keeping the lights on shouldn’t be this difficult. The response by Entergy to the outage at the Super Bowl is very reminiscent of the responses by Entergy to the many problems at its Vermont Yankee nuclear plant. It boils down to a piece of equipment failed and the power went out. A repeated problem at Vermont Yankee has been equipment failures – from cooling tower collapses to leaking pipes.

Sure problems happen, but c’mon. Enough already. The problem is that the same company that can’t keep the lights on for the Super Bowl is also challenged to keep its nuclear fleet running smoothly.

Even without news of the Super Bowl outage, UBS issued another report  about the shaky financial future of Vermont Yankee. The report states:

“We continue to believe Entergy is likely to decommission at least one of its units, such as Vermont Yankee, in 2013. We anticipate the process of decommissioning will become of greater importance to Entergy shareholders, as concerns around shareholder-financed contributions to decommissioning funds continue to garner concern.”

The financial outlook looks bleak. Meanwhile, next week hearings begin at the Vermont Public Service Board about Vermont Yankee’s future. Entergy has money to keep four law firms employed working on the case. That money would be better spent closing the plant and cleaning up the site.

photo courtesy of topher76@flickr.com

This past week has shown Vermont first-hand the high cost of nuclear power. Hosting a plant in your state is clearly a high-stakes bargain.

Vermont went to Court in Manhattan this week before a three judge panel at the United States Court of Appeals. (Read more here and here). It had fifteen minutes for its lawyer to explain to the judges why the decision of the District Court blocking the actions of the Vermont Legislature should be reversed. A tough task.

With clarity and nimbleness, Vermont proved it was up to the task. Its lawyer, Attorney David Frederick, an experienced appellate lawyer who argued a case last week before the United States Supreme Court, explained that Vermont has every right to determine Vermont Yankee’s fate. And doing so does not impinge on the federal government’s oversight of radiological issues.

In a nutshell, there were three points.

First the United States Supreme Court case from 1983 that let stand a California law enacting a moratorium on nuclear plants would allow the Vermont law. If a state can ban all nuclear plants, it can certainly allow the Legislature to determine the fate of one plant.

Second, the lease on Vermont Yankee expired and like a landlord, Vermont can simply refuse to renew the lease. Period. Any tenant knows this. Vermont is hosting this plant and can say it wants the property used for another purpose.

Third, Vermont has huge skin in the game and economic exposure from Vermont Yankee. If Entergy, the owner of Vermont Yankee, goes bankrupt or simply chooses to walk away, Vermonters are left holding the bag for what Conservation Law Foundation has described as the nuclear equivalent of junk car in its backyard. This possibility is more likely following recent reports that Vermont Yankee is not pulling its weight and that Entergy would be better off closing the plant.

The stakes are high. Apart from hosting this plant, Entergy is seeking to recoup over $4 million in legal fees, and now has four law firms working to push every legal angle possible. Times change. When Vermont first approved the Vermont Yankee facility in the 1970s, there was a hearing for three days before the Vermont Public Service Board. Clearly nuclear power and hosting plants is more expensive and time consuming than ever.

Vermont is right to begin extracting itself from this nuclear legacy. Unfortunately, that is proving to be not so easy.

Photo courtesy of Andy Hares @ flickr.com

The financial world is waking up to what a drag Vermont Yankee really is. The tired, old and leaking nuclear plant in Vermont is not carrying its weight. Financial analysts report that Vermont Yankee is economically vulnerable and a retirement announcement would boost stock prices for its parent, Entergy.

You can read the UBS Investment Research report “Re-assessing Cash Flows from the Nukes” here. It states:

“Notably, we believe both its NY Fitzpatrick and Vermont Yankee plants are at risk of retirement given their small size; while potentially negative to sentiment, an announcement to retire the units would likely drive positive FCF revisions.”

Clearly it is past time to close this plant.

Analysts today dropped the projected price target for Entergy’s stock. They see high debt and little cash coming in. Not good news for any investment.

It is good the financial world is waking up to what Vermonters have known for years. Vermont Yankee is not a good deal. It hasn’t been for years. It is expensive and financially risky. Conservation Law Foundation submitted testimony to the Public Service Board on the lousy economics of allowing Vermont Yankee to continue to operate. It does not have enough money for decommissioning, low energy prices mean it is not making money and any problems would saddle Vermont with big problems. You can read CLF’s testimony here.

These are not problems we need. Nuclear power was once touted as too cheap to meter. That has never been true. Now it is too expensive to even keep operating. Thank goodness financial markets are waking up to this fact.

Photo courtesy of Wiertz Sébastien @ flickr.

It’s been a great year for CLF — and a great year on CLF Scoop. We’ve had lots of great posts by our advocates, staff and volunteers. See below for the most read 10 blog posts published in 2012.

Counting Down to Shark Week 2012
Nov 11, 2011 by Robin Just

The Promise of Urban Agriculture: New Growing Green Report
Jul 12, 2012 by Jo Anne Shatkin and Melissa Hoffer

Latest Research: Northern Pass Worse for the Climate than Advertised
Feb 14, 2012 by Christophe Courchesne

The “New Route” for Northern Pass Won’t Cure Its Failings
May 24, 2012 by Christophe Courchesne

Salem Harbor Enforced Shutdown: The Beginning of the End for Old Coal in New England
Feb 10, 2012 by N. Jonathan Peress

Risky Business: Leaking Natural Gas Infrastructure and How to Fix It
Nov 28, 2012 by Shanna Cleveland

Everything You Know Is Wrong: Growing the Economy Without Growing Electricity (and Energy) Demand
Oct 1, 2012 by Seth Kaplan

It’s Time to Stop Subsidizing PSNH’s Dirty Power
Feb 1, 2012 by Christophe Courchesne

Save the Beach or Save Your House: Which Would You Choose?
Apr 25, 2012 by Tricia K. Jedele

photo courtesy of strikkelist@flickr.com

Regulators issued another strong rebuke to the owners of Vermont Yankee. The Vermont Public Service Board strongly rejected Entergy’s requests to change prior orders. Entergy continues to operate in defiance of Vermont law. Patience with this sort of behavior is wearing thin.  Read the decision here.

Entergy asked to change orders so that it would have authority to operate past March 21, 2012. The Board strongly rejected that request. As the Board’s conclusion states:

For the reasons set out above, the Board denies Entergy VY’s motion to amend Condition 8 of the Sale Order, which prohibited operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station after March 21, 2012, without Board approval and conditions in the Dry Fuel Storage Order and CPG that limit the amount of spent nuclear fuel that Entergy VY may store at the Vernon site to amounts generated from operation up to March 21, 2012.

Entergy knew and agreed to the commitment not to operate after March 2012 and had ample time to challenge or seek amendment earlier. Entergy didn’t.

Instead, Entergy chose to defy the Board’s orders, walk away from its commitments, thumb its nose at Vermont and just continue to operate. It then asked the Board to change the prior orders, claiming hardship and that being held to its prior commitments was somehow unforeseeable.

The Board roundly rejected each of Entergy’s claims. Any hardship is Entergy’s own making based on its own tactical decisions, and does not justify changing the rules after the fact.

Entergy’s in a very tight box. It cannot prove to the Board that it is a trustworthy operator when at the same time it is operating in bold defiance of the same Board’s orders.

When:  Monday evening, November 19, 2012 beginning at 7 pm.

Where:  Vermont Interactive Television sites around Vermont – Find locations here.

What:  Should Vermont Yankee – a tired, old nuclear facility on the banks of the Connecticut River retire and its untrustworthy owners close shop?

How:  Speak up at a public hearing. This is YOUR chance to let YOUR voice be heard.

Help put an end to Vermont Yankee’s troubled history.

The Vermont Public Service Board will determine if Vermont Yankee should be allowed to operate for another twenty years. A disappointing court case decided last spring said issues of radiological health and safety can only be decided by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but Vermont regulators will decide if continued operation of Vermont Yankee by its untrustworthy owners makes sense for Vermont’s economy, environment and power supply.

Need a refresher? Here is a list of newspaper headlines about problems at Vermont Yankee since the collapse of the cooling tower in 2007.

More information is available from the Public Service Board website.

Tips and issues to talk about:

1. Environment – Heated water from the plant is harming fish and habitat in the Connecticut River. This has been getting worse and Entergy’s studies have been faulty.
2. Economics – There is little value to Vermont from the continued operation of the plant. There is the equivalent of a junk car on the banks of the river. Money has not been added to the decommissioning fund and it is inadequate to close and clean up the site.
3. Untrustworthy owners – Entergy is not a good partner for Vermont. Their executives provided false testimony to regulators  and continue to break promises, including a promise that they would close in March 2012.
4. Energy Plan – Vermont is moving away from older and more polluting forms of energy towards clean renewable energy. Vermont Yankee is not part of a sustainable energy future for Vermont.
5. No Need for Power — There is an excess of electric power available in New England now. The lights will stay on without Vermont Yankee.

Tell the Board what you think.

Written or email comments can also be provided.

Hats off to Vermont regulators for requesting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to put an end to the string of mishaps at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant.

photo courtesy of shersteve@flickr.com

Vermont Yankee is an aging nuclear plant on the banks of the Connecticut River. It is increasingly showing its age and the time for stepped up oversight is long overdue. The request cites incidents that “continue to pile up”, including:

 “a misaligned valve in the pool where the plant stores highly radioactive spent fuel waste allowed 2,700 gallons of water to drain out of the pool. Another involved epoxy applied to a condenser to keep it from leaking; that interfered with the condenser’s operation and forced the plant to reduce its power output.”

It is time for the NRC to step in and show its willingness to exert more than lackluster oversight of the nation’s nuclear fleet.

With The New York Times reporting from Japan that “the nuclear accident at Fukushima was a preventable disaster rooted in government-industry collusion and the worst conformist conventions of Japanese culture,” it is important that similar problems not occur here in the US.

The NRC is responsible for matters concerning radiological health and safety at nuclear power plants. It is important that they provide real oversight and not have a cozy relationship with industry that lets problems “pile up” or human error and poor management continue.

Thank you Vermont regulators for keeping the pressure on the NRC.

A recent decision from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) offers hope that the nuclear industry’s free ride is coming to an end. The problem of what to do with the ever-growing amount of nuclear waste that is stockpiled at nuclear sites around the country has been vexing industry and regulators for years. It is a shameful reminder of poor management. Our nuclear reactors continue to operate and generate more waste when we have no real solution for its long-term storage.

Absent a permanent answer, the waste sits where it ends up when it is no longer useful. In the case of Vermont, it sits on the banks of the Connecticut River or in a spent fuel pool of the same style and vintage as was used at the Fukushima reactor.

On August 7, the NRC decided no new or extended licenses will be finalized until the Commission completes the environmental review of waste issues that a Federal Appeals Court required in a June decision. Specifically the NRC decided it will:

(1) suspend final licensing decisions in reactor licensing cases, pending the completion of our action on the remanded Waste Confidence proceeding; (2) provide an opportunity for public comment on any generic determinations that we may make in either an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS); and (3) provide at least sixty days to seek consideration in individual licensing cases of any site-specific concerns relating to the remanded proceedings.  (pg.3)

This is a very significant decision. The Federal Court gave the Commission a strong rebuke when it rejected NRC and industry claims that keeping waste where it is indefinitely is safe based only on a limited analysis of keeping it there for twenty years.

The waste storage issue is huge. It is crazy to think we can continue to license and operate nuclear facilities when we acknowledge we don’t have a place to put the waste. This decision is a step in the right direction, as we now have some assurance the impacts will be evaluated and the public will be allowed to participate in that process.

It is unclear what effect this will have on existing licenses. The specific decision only addressed licenses that are pending, including renewals.  As for Vermont Yankee, it is likely that these decisions will affect the state-level Public Service Board review. Vermont regulators must determine if continued operation “promotes the general good of the state.” While issues of radiological health and safety can legally only be managed at the federal level, the indefinite storage of waste and the lack of solutions produce economic burdens that are important for state regulators to address. Vermont and other states cannot be stiffed into holding the bag and bearing the economic burdens of unsound nuclear waste management. this harms Vermont’s “general good.”

Additional information is available in this Vermont Digger article - Nuclear Regulatory Commission halts nuclear power licensing decisions

Environmental issues span the globe. When it comes to nuclear power, global action is needed. That’s why it was a privilege for CLF advocates to meet with a number of environmental lawyers from Japan, many of whom are members of the Japan Environmental Lawyers Federation.

The tragedy of Fukushima shows the need for the US to stop giving nuclear power a free pass. Just yesterday another mishap at the accident-prone Vermont Yankee facility resulted in the draining of some of the radioactive cooling water. Enough already.

Our conversation addressed how environmental groups operate. We also touched on some of the litigation tools available to protect our environment from the risks of nuclear power – from problems with the storage of waste, the possibilities of accidents, and the economic problems that nuclear power creates.

Our colleagues in Japan have a far keener sense of how important this work is. As different as our legal systems are, it was interesting to find the similarities as well, including how challenging it is to navigate the interplay of state or local government oversight with federal regulations.

The attorneys shared with CLF MA advocate Jenny Rushlow that most Japanese attorneys interested in practicing environmental law are only able to dedicate a small percentage of their time to environmental cases, as it is difficult to find compensation for that work. As a result, the attorneys we met with mostly take on environmental cases on a volunteer basis. The group reported on a number of high impact cases, including a current lawsuit aimed at classifying carbon dioxide as a pollutant, much like the Massachusetts v. EPA case.