Political Emissions;

Politics by Emerson Lynn

The Environmental Protection Agency Monday said greenhouse gases are a danger to the public’s health, next week more than 100 world leaders will meet in Copenhagen to gather commitments to limit these emissions, and in Vermont all five of the Democrats running for governor are inclined to work in the opposite direction by shutting down Vermont Yankee.

If, as the EPA suggests, regulations need to be put into place to curb greenhouse gases, and if these same emissions – on a global scale – are bringing the planet to the point of ruin, why would Doug Racine, Peter Shumlin, Matt Dunne, Deb Markowitz and Susan Bartlett want to shut down a plant with almost no emissions that supplies the state a third of its power?

Politics. The nuclear power plant in Vernon is to liberals what kryptonite is to Superman. It’s problematic for any of the candidates to signal an acceptance of Vermont Yankee given the fact that those opposed to the plant are almost to the person politically involved and searching for the candidate who best reflects their thinking.

Still, the candidates’ arguments are akin to squaring the circle.

These same candidates will argue the need to reduce emissions. They will remain stout in the defense of Vermont retaining its ranking as the state with the smallest environmental footprint. They will command attention by suggesting the jobs lost can be recovered through “green energy” development.

Their beast of burden is alternative energy. If we build enough windmills, or solar panels, or burn enough of our waste, or conserve – then the nuclear power from Vermont Yankee is not needed.

Eventually, that’s true, as least as far as Vermont Yankee is concerned. At some point, the plant will be closed and at some point there will be enough renewables to suffice.

But the arguments are not accurate in the moment and if the move to shut down Vermont Yankee prevails, Vermonters can expect three things: higher utility bills, an energy portfolio less appealing than what we have, and increased pressure on those industries disproportionately affected by the price of energy – think IBM.

Critics note that Vermont Yankee is in the process of negotiating a new deal with the state’s utilities, and that the price is almost guaranteed to go up, which is true. The price is below market now and no one expects them to negotiate a deal in which they lose money. But in 2002, the state negotiated a deal with Vermont Yankee in which the company shares 50 cents out of every dollar above a certain price set for the utilities in the new contract. What this does is ensure that the peaks would essentially be capped, which would keep our prices relatively low and stable, compared to the market. If the plant is shut down, we have no such protection.

Pricing stability is central to any business, why would we give up something that would extend until 2022?

We would all prefer that our energy come from renewables, and not fossil fuels. But the wind doesn’t always blow, nor the sun always shine. They do not supply our baseload needs and for every kilowatt of renewable energy created a kilowatt of baseload energy needs to be available to back it up. Vermont Yankee supplies a third of the state’s baseload power. If the plant closes we would have two options: go to the grid, or increase our contract levels with Hydro Quebec, which also supplies a third of the state’s baseload power. If we go to the grid, the price goes up and the “cleanliness” of our portfolio declines. If we go to Hydro Quebec, then we are disproportionately dependent on a single source for two-thirds of our power – not a good bargaining position.

This is why both Central Vermont Public Service and Green Mountain Power support the relicensing of Vermont Yankee. Both would like to reduce their dependency on the nuclear plant, but they know they can’t get there from here without the bridge that Vermont Yankee provides.

Vermont needs an energy portfolio that includes a robust mix of renewable energy sources. We also need to continue our focus on conservation. But we also need to be honest about what can be accomplished, and at what costs. Even the advocates understand that Vermont does not currently have the potential to meet its energy needs through renewable energy projects dotted across the state. And they also understand that the price of renewables is considerably above that of Vermont Yankee and Hydro Quebec.

Our gubernatorial wannabes should work from this understanding as well. To shrink from this challenge cheats the debate. It also works in direct contradiction to what is going on in the rest of the world. It’s odd that five Democrats from the liberal state of Vermont are actually pushing – by default – a position that would increase the level of emissions the rest of the world wants to curb.

(Emerson Lynn is editor and publisher of the St. Albans Messenger where this essay first appeared.)

Comments

[Tom Evslin]

Well written, Emerson. It's a time for unequivocal support for relicensing Yankee whether your concern is the economics of energy supply, the strategic danger of dependence on oil from unfriendly places, or the possible environmental consequences of CO2 emissions. Even if we don't have consensus on any of these issues, we still should be able to build a coalition around the responsible action which addresses them all - relicensing.

In fact we ought to be looking for ways to displace fossil fuels used in home heating and transportation with electrically-delivered off-peak energy from Yankee, Hydro Quebec, and alternative sources as they come online. Almost 75% of Vermont homes heat with oil or propane - way, way above the national average and the major source of both petroleum demand and CO2 production in the state.

Which leads to my one quibble with your excellent post: since we'll need more electricity in the future, the right response to the fact that Yankee is old and will one day go offline is to look at how, in the two decades before that happens, we can build a new, modern nuclear plant. Presumably (at least, hopefully) we'll have solved the national political problem around fuel rod storage by then. This is a measure to preserve diversity of supply and should be done in conjunction with further development of alternative sources IMHO.

[Paul Schmidt]

I have no problem with safe nuclear power plants, but VT Yankee has shown too often that it isn't. Nuclear waste is not clean or green, and there is still no plan to deal with it. If somehow there were a magically build new plant that was safe, that would be another consideration perhaps. The radioactive waste issue still needs to dealt with though. Just shipping it out of state even doesn't make it go away, either.

Will the lights go out in Vermont if/ when VT Yankee goes offline, doubtful. Perhaps prices may go up or we are more heavily invested with Hydro Quebec, but a major issue with nuclear power that is irrelevant to the issue of CO2 is the waste ... what do we do about that.

Otherwise some good points.

[Bill]

I enjoyed reading this. If all five Democrat candidates want to impress the left wing of their party that is their business, although I would think at least one of them would want to stand up for keeping the price of power affordable for working Vermonters and anyone else without a trust fund. But I forget these are mostly the same folks who locked us into renewable power at a price north of .20 per kWh. A stampede of applicants seeking to produce renewable power at that rate--more applicants than slots available--proves the legislature overpaid with your dollars. It will cost you every time you pay your power bill and every time an employer leaves the state. Don't let them jack up your power bill again and again by closing Vermont Yankee. Make them pay a political price for their actions.

[Dennis Lukas]

To Paul Schmidt, VT Yankee has had only minor mechanical & physical problems, nuclear plants can survive huge amounts of damage with out radioactive release, the GREAT THREE MILE ISLAND accident realeased as much radiation as you get when you stand in the sun. As for disposal, we have THE BEST storage facility on earth in Nevada that the evnviromentalists block us from using after spending billions of dollars building it.The tiny country of France has no problem with its waste.If you live in Vermont you are exposed to more naturally formed contaminates in the rock and water,radon for one,on a daily basis and you are worried about minute traces of radiation?

[David Usher]

Candidates whose rhetoric panders to 'green' constituencies should be pressed to explain why higher energy costs are good for Vermont's overall economy. The stark reality is that Vermont Yankee is a very good deal for the state, particularly the beneficial revenue sharing agreement that would run until 2022, if VY is relicensed.

The appeal to 'feel-good' emotions that some people harbor about doing 'something' about global warming is a transparent attempt to solicit votes. The truth is that Vermont Yankee relicensing with fair pricing is the best deal for Vermont, providing both low energy costs and maintaining a minimal carbon footprint.

As Tom Evslin correctly points out, the disposal of spent nuclear fuel is a political, not a technical issue. An even better solution would be a commitment to spent fuel reprocessing to support the nuclear industry.