Money Talks

The year of decision on Vermont Yankee approaches.  The state – in the form of the Public Service Board and the Legislature – will decide in 2009 on relicensing the nuclear plant.   Those who have long seen the plant as a vile dragon in urgent need of slaying will make all the old, familiar arguments.  They must now add to that list an explanation of how it will benefit the state – and its ratepayers – to take a pass on a three quarters of a billion dollar windfall if the plant is relicensed.

The revenue sharing provision in the original contract covering the Entergy corporation's purchase of the plant has always been there, but ...

The strike price, or trigger for profit-sharing, was set in 2002 at the unheard-of price of $61 per megawatt hour of electricity, which translates to 6.1 cents per kilowatt hour.
 
Electricity was relatively cheap in the winter of 2002, as the nation was still reeling from the economic effects of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the collapse of Enron, the Texas energy trader. Electricity was selling for about 3 cents per kilowatt hour, and the thought that power would double in price by 2012 was a bad joke at the time.
 
Make that a $750 million joke, and counting.
 
To put that number into perspective: Vermonters currently spend about $702 million a year on electricity, according to the Department of Public Service.
 
As of last week, electricity was selling on ISO New England for more than double the $61 "strike price," for peak power, about $127, and about 50 percent higher for off-peak, or $94 a megawatt hour.
    Rutland Herald

Two conclusions seem inescapable here:

1. If you consider electricity a resource, then Vermont has an abundance of it at a time when supplies are uncertain and expensive.

2. The state's utilities – and ratepayers – will reap a considerable windfall as a result of this abundance.

Good news, right?

Well, not so fast there, Alphonse.

Democratic lawmakers say the latest profit estimates prove that Vermont Yankee is a cash cow for corporate parent Entergy, and they worry that under the deal the safety of the nearly 40-year-old reactor will be superseded by the prospect of lower electricity rates.

A "cash cow," in spite of the fact that the plant sells electricity to the state's utilities at bargain rates.  That would seem to be good news but ... well, you know, this is Vermont and any news about Yankee is guaranteed to bring out the not-so-inner snark in certain quarters:

"We have to put safety first and low rates for Vermonters second in this case, because none of us will benefit Vermont if the plant is not reliable and safe for another 20 years," said Sen. Peter Shumlin, D-Windham, president pro tempore of the Senate, whose home district includes Vermont Yankee.
Shumlin warns there is "nothing in writing" that specifies whether the profits would go to utility shareholders or ratepayers.
"I think there's a real gap between what they say, what they promise and what they deliver," said Shumlin, who has been battling with Entergy Nuclear on several fronts this year.

The safety issue has been amply politicized, already.  Not least by Mr. Shumlin, who continues to wage an epic vendetta against Yankee. 

Hard to know what Shumlin means with his distinction about what Yankee promises and then delivers.  So far as we can tell, it promises to deliver electricity and does so at bargain rates with huge rebates to come.  Anywhere else, it would be exceedingly hard to argue with that.

But not here.

Comments

[David Usher]

Here it is pure and simple.

Those that would close Vermont Yankee will demonize any benefits as not worth the(safety)risk despite all the evidence to the contrary. They will also do everything possible to make the case that Yankee is unsafe while couching it all in the shroud of 'study groups.'

If Yankee opponents hold elective office, they are simply pandering to what they think is their constituent base using safety as their message. If she/he believes Yankee should close, any politician has a responsibility to propose or endorse a realistic and economically sound alternative for Vermont's supply of baseload electricity. Absent that, they do not deserve to be taken seriously (or reelected).

Wind and solar, useful as they may be...someday, do not make the cut.

[Chris Campion]

If Shumlin, et al, are interested in creating a ghost state where tumbleweeds mostly bounce off cars with out-of-state plates on them, they're on the right path. Vermont will eventually become home to only those who can afford property taxes and utilities, because apparently our legislature has yet to take a course in Economics. When the state ultimately closes its doors, will Shumlin still be around to turn off the lights when he's done?

[Brattleboro_conservative]

Peter Shumlin and Gaye Symington will do just nicely after all the lights go dark in Vermont. All the Enviro-heads in Montpelier think the lack of electricity in this state is a good idea and so do the dimwits who voted for them. The only way to change things around here is to give the "green" people in Vermont what they want. Only when someone is deprived of the benefits of modern living will they appreciate what they had after they lost it.

Want to change the political culture in Vermont? Make ALL the voters in this state suffer.