BRATTLEBORO — What many of you are working on - not only in Vermont but also all over America and all over the world - is one of the great struggles of our time: to create an energy future that not only protects our generation, but also our kids and our grandchildren.
That's what we're talking about.
What we are demanding is justice. We are demanding an agreement that was signed 40 years ago be honored by a major corporation that signs an agreement with the state of Vermont.
What we are talking about today is not only the future - or, hopefully, the lack of future - of Vermont Yankee, but also, in a very profound way, about the need to transform our energy system away from nuclear power, away from fossil fuel and to energy efficiency.
Transforming our energy system is a struggle that we are all involved in, a struggle in which this state can lead the nation and America can lead the world.
That's what we're doing.
* * *
Clearly, safety is a major issue, and I don't have to remind anybody here what happened a year ago in March in Fukushima, Japan, when an earthquake combined with a tsunami knocked out power and backup power leading to a meltdown at three of the six reactors.
One hundred thousand people were forced to evacuate, and many may never return to their homes.
Let us also remember that the Fukushima disaster not only disrupted millions of lives in Japan, but it also impacted the entire economy and to some degree, in fact, the world's economy.
The lesson to be learned in Fukushima is very, very simple, and that is when you are dealing with nuclear power, 99.9 percent is not good enough.
Remember that every disaster, every occurrence was unthinkable until it happened, so it would so obvious to make sure that those disasters never happen by phasing out nuclear power in America.
I am a member of the Senate Energy Committee, which has oversight regulation over the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
About the NRC: there have been 71 instances in which companies went to the NRC to ask for an extension of licenses to operate nuclear power plants.
And on 71 occasions, the NRC said yes.
This is the same NRC that the Associated Press in a recent article stated “has been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards or simply failing to enforce them.”
That is the same NRC that voted in secret to recommended and urge the Department of Justice to intervene in the Entergy v. Vermont case on the side of Entergy.
That would have been an obscenity, and I'm glad we got the DOJ out of that case.
Now, in Vermont, we look at the world a little bit different than the NRC, and I am happy to say that our legislature looks at the world a little bit differently.
As all of you know, the legislature asserted the legal authority to make an independent determination of whether or not Vermont Yankee should be allowed to continue to operate, and the Vermont Senate voted strongly and decisively in a 26-4, bipartisan vote, that the contract with Vermont Yankee should not be extended, thank you.
Let me say a word to some of the people who disagree with us about the future of VY: one of the issues that keeps appearing - and it is a legitimate issue - is about the decent paying jobs that currently exist.
The real issue is that we are in a recession and all of us want to protect decent paying jobs. Let's begin the decommissioning process. Let's give top priority to those workers at the plant today, and if we do that, there'll be years of decent paying jobs.
Let me just say this law really is quite clear on this issue, and what the law says is that the federal government through the NRC has the responsibility - and it's a very important responsibility - to make sure the nuclear power plants in this country are as safe as possible.
That is the function of the NRC.
The NRC is not supposed to be an advocate for nuclear power or an ally of the nuclear power industry.
What the Supreme Court - the old Supreme Court - stated back in 1983 is pretty clear in terms of states' rights. The legal reality remains that “Congress has left sufficient authority in the states to allow the development of nuclear power to be slowed or even stopped for economic reasons.”
In other words, if the people of Vermont or any other state say that they believe their future is not with nuclear power, they have the right to shoot those plans down.
* * *
Let me be very clear in my view the Federal District Court that decided the Entergy v. Vermont litigation made a decision that was wrong on the merits.
The court said Vermont's legislature was focused on safety and did not have the right to make its own determination about Vermont Yankee, but we know and the Vermont Legislature knows that there are a number of reasons above and beyond the safety issue that makes it legally right for the Vermont Legislature to act to shut down nuclear power.
Let me just touch on a few.
One could argue that Vermont Yankee is simply not reliable. After all, it did suffer from cooling tower problems in 2007 and 2008, including a cooling tower collapse, reducing output at the plant for several weeks.
This accident cost Vermont utilities over $6 million when they had to go out and buy higher-priced electricity. In fact, those utilities are now suing Entergy to recover their money, so reliability is an important issue.
Furthermore, one could argue that Vermont Yankee is simply not economical.
In fact, Vermont's largest utilities rejected contract offers from Entergy because they found energy providers that were providing electricity at a lower cost. The Vermont Electric Cooperative Board voted 9-1 against renewing a contract with Entergy.
One could further argue that Entergy is simply not a trustworthy business partner. When your company testifies falsely under oath to the Vermont Legislature, as Entergy did, that your plant does not have underground pipes and it turns out that you do, in fact, have those pipes and that they're leaking radioactive tritium, you have a trust problem.
Let us all remember that even the previous governor's commissioner at the Department of Public Service, who supported Vermont Yankee, publicly questioned the trustworthiness of Entergy.
These are just a few of the legitimate non-safety issues regarding Vermont Yankee, which make it very clear to me that the state of Vermont does have the legal right not to extend Vermont's contract under federal law.
* * *
But above and beyond all of that: I don't know about you, but I have a serious problem when this nuclear plant and nuclear plants all over this country produce extraordinarily dangerous radioactive and toxic waste ever single day and they still don't know how to get rid of all that waste in a permanent and safe way.
It is irresponsible to continue producing that waste.
I want to take a moment to talk about an issue that is very, very rarely discussed, but it is very important. It's not just about Vermont Yankee; it's about the nuclear power industry in general.
It's especially important because as many of you know, virtually all of the Republicans in Congress - and, unfortunately, many Democrats as well - want to see the United States have a “nuclear renaissance.”
What they're talking about is the construction of at least a hundred new nuclear power plants.
Here's the point.
When you turn on the TV tonight, you can hear some of my conservative friends rant and rave about the big, bad federal government: “Get the government off the backs of the business community; let the genius of free enterprise do what it wants to do.”
You hear that all the time? Well, let me tell you, if it wasn't for the fact that the nuclear power industry is one of the major welfare recipients from the federal government, it would be shut down tomorrow.
Now a lot of people don't know that nuclear power for the last 60 years - and into the indefinite future, if we don't change it - is one of the major welfare recipients of taxpayer support in the United States of America.
The nuclear power industry has received over the years $95 million in federal funds for research and development alone, and right now we are struggling to renew relatively modest programs for wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass, which are opposed by the big-money interests in Washington.
Many of you may not notice that the nuclear power industry is the beneficiary of a very, very expensive insurance program supported by the taxpayers of this country, the Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act of 1957.
What Price Anderson is, is that if, God forbid, there is a major nuclear disaster in this country which ends up costing tens of billions of dollars or hundreds of billions of dollars, most of the cost gets picked up by the taxpayers of the United States of America.
What makes these federal subsidies even more distasteful? As many of you know, the nuclear industry is controlled by a handful of large, multinational corporations. Just two of them - Exelon and Entergy - control about a third of the nuclear industry in our country.
So what I say to my friends who want more nuclear power: If you think it is such a great idea, why don't you go to Wall Street and the insurance companies and get them to invest in nuclear power?
And do you know why they are not going to? Because Wall Street and the insurance companies are smart: They know that nuclear power is extremely risky, it is not a good investment, and they prefer to have the taxpayers of this country undertake those responsibilities.
* * *
So let me conclude by just saying this: In my view, and I think in the view of the vast majority of the people of our state, we understand the absolute necessity for Vermont, for America and for the world to transform our energy system away from nuclear power and away from fossil fuel.
We understand that when we look at safety issues, reliability issues, cost issues: Where we should be investing is in energy efficiency. Vermont is leading the country, but we can and must do better.
We should be investing in wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass. And when we do those things, we are going to be creating jobs right here in the United States of America. We are going to be breaking our dependence on foreign oil and will be lowering of the cost of energy for the American people.
My sincere hope - and I honestly believe that we can do this - is that in Vermont, if we shut down Vermont Yankee, if we move to energy efficiency, if we are aggressive about wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and other emerging sustainable technologies, this small state can lead America in a new energy direction, and lead the world in that direction.