VERNON — Just weeks ago, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee had been moving toward its goal - a Certificate of Public Good - but recent events have called into question the legislature's faith in the company.
The Certificate of Public Good, a prerequisite to continuing to operate the reactor even if the federal Nuclear Regulatory Agency gives the plant a green light to continue operating past 2012, is issued by the state Department of Public Utilities on the approval of the Public Service Board, a three-member panel that rules on state energy licensing issues.
Speaker of the House Shap Smith and Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, both Democrats, have called on the Department of Public Service to reconsider its support for Entergy's quest to spin off ownership of the plant to a newly formed, highly leveraged subsidiary corporation, Enexus.
Both Smith and Shumlin, a candidate for governor, have excoriated the plant's leadership over the past weeks.
With the PSB opening previous testimony to reevaluation in light of Entergy's erroneous assertions about the existence of pipes that carry radioactive byproducts of the nuclear energy process, State Rep. Sarah Edwards said the legislature must glean more information about the plant and about how the misinformation about the pipes moved through the state regulatory process.
In 2006, the state legislature passed - and Governor Jim Douglas signed into law - Act 160, a provision that gives the lawmakers a make-or-break role in determining the reactor's future after 2012.
According to the letter of the law, the DPS cannot issue the Certificate of Public Good “until the general assembly determines that operation will promote the general welfare and grants approval for that operation.” If the legislature denies that authority or if it fails to vote at all, the certificate will not be issued. The governor will have no say in the matter.
Lawmakers respond
On Jan. 26, 14 state representatives and senators representing Windham County towns issued a statement to reassure constituents that they are “closely following the most recent events” at the plant, and asserting that “public health and safety must never be compromised, and information must be accurate and timely.”
Interviewed on Jan. 27, Edwards, a Progressive, said that in light of the recent events, “I'm seeing [representatives] who had been saying 'continue it' changing their minds.”
Edwards, who serves on the House Committee on Natural Resources and Energy, said she feels particularly irritated because as a committee member researching decommissioning issues, “around the country, I saw these plants were getting leaks.”
“I was concerned about the condition and thought we needed to check it out, to see what these leaks might do to the decommissioning price and to add additional money into the decommissioning costs if these pipes were degrading over time,” Edwards said.
Vernon representative Patty O'Donnell, a Republican, did not respond to a request for an interview. But speaking Jan. 28 on Vermont Public Radio, O'Donnell, who has been fiercely loyal to the plant and has strongly supported its continued operation, said she shares deep concerns about the company leadership but continues to have faith in VY's work force.
O'Donnell also emphasized that her primary concern remains the safety of the plant.
A vote in the 2009 session?
With Entergy having taken a public stand that the company must have a clear answer from state lawmakers and regulators about the plant during this legislative session, the recent events have thrown into question the likelihood of that happening.
A 2009 “issues document” posted on the plant's Web site, www.safecleanreliable.com, describes a 2010 approval as creating a “serious hardship,” and warns that if regulatory action and the legislative vote are delayed until April 2010, “the company would have passed a 'point of no return' for operation of the plant beyond March 21, 2012.”
In a Jan. 27 press conference, Governor Jim Douglas urged the legislature not to address the Vermont Yankee issue this session. With the Certificate of Public Good docket now on an uncertain timeline, some legislators, Edwards among them, advocate waiting for the new and presumably correct information from Entergy before taking up a vote.
And even if the legislature does take up the issue, Bob Stannard, a lobbyist representing the anti-nuclear, pro-alternative-energy Vermont Citizens Action Network, has seen a sea change in lawmakers' opinions about the plant.
“Three sessions ago, I told my clients I saw a 3-to-5-percent chance of success [in defeating Entergy's goal of continued operation],” Stannard said. “Now we're at the point that if a vote were held this afternoon, I don't think there would be 20 votes to support them.”