Suzi Wizowaty

Some have asked me how it happens that the legislature has any authority over Vermont Yankee (VY). With thanks to Tony Klein, chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, and John Greenberg, independent policy analyst, here's a thumbnail sketch of that history. (Any errors are mine alone.)

Vermont law requires a positive legislative vote for the construction of any new nuclear power plant as well as for any expansion of on-site nuclear waste storage. In the late 1960s, the legislature voted by a one-vote margin to allow the construction of VY. The plant went on-line in 1972.

By the early 2000s, it became clear that VY would reach its on-site wet pool storage capacity by 2011, even though it was licensed to operate till 2012. Spent fuel rods, considered high-level nuclear waste, were stored in a wet pool. (The current pool holds roughly five times the number of spent fuel rods it was designed for. This has been managed in various ways, but is considered by some to put the fuel at much greater risk of "criticiality," in the event of a coolant-related accident.) In 2005 the legislature gave permission for the plant to build on-site dry cask storage. At the same time the legislative process was streamlined so that permission to operate beyond 2012 would also include permission to increase on-site storage.

We--the legislature--also required the Public Service Board (PSB) to look at VY's request to continue operating as if it were a new request. That is, the PSB had to look at the plant's potential benefits and liabilities just as it would look at the potential benefits and liabilities of a new plant.

With VY's license soon to expire, the legislature asked the Dept. of Public Service (DPS) to look evaluate the plant's reliability and its economic viability. We also authorized a separate oversight panel to study the reliability of the plant. These reports are available now. Meanwhile, the PSB is considering whether to issue a new certificate of public good (CPG), required for continued operation, to VY. But the PSB cannot issue a CPG unless and until the legislature votes affirmatively for continued operation.

What about the purchase power agreement between Entergy, which owns VY, and the utilities (Green Mountain Power [GMP], Central Vermont Public Service [CVPS] and possibly others)? The state's legislative leadership (Shap Smith and Peter Shumlin) has said it won't complete its review until it has a chance to assess the economic impact on Vermonters of whatever agreement is reached. So far, there is no agreement. Smith and Shumlin have maintained that without such an agreement to analyze, there can be no vote on continued operation.

Ordinarily, any agreement would be taken to DPS (tasked to represent the interests of ratepayers), which would give its blessing, and then to the PSB, the regulating body. On the basis of the agreement, the board would issue Entergy a CPG (after a positive legislative vote), and then, later, use the agreement to establish rates for CVPS and GMP. The DPS would participate in the rate setting as well.

Not only does this all seem rather convoluted, but there are plenty of other issues as well--the reorganization of Entergy (potentially spinning off VY to be held by another company, less well capitalized), the status of the decommissioning fund, environmental concerns. All of these are being debated in many forums, as they matter in various degrees to different people. The issue promises to generate a lot of energy this session. Stay tuned.