Two States, Same Energy Dilemma

[from the CV Spectator of May 1, 2009]

What a remarkable spring it is in the region’s two state capitals, where the same subject has roiled each legislature. At issue have been the most fundamental questions about our shared values.

No, I am not referring to same-gender marriage. I am talking about energy.

In Vermont, the question is whether to sign up for another 20 years of dependence on an aging nuclear plant – Vermont Yankee in Vernon -- with all of the potentially dire consequences related to radioactive waste.

In New Hampshire, the question is whether to sign up for another 20 years of dependence on an aging coal plant – Merrimack Station in Bow -- with all of the potentially dire consequences related to climate change.

Each plant is a relatively inexpensive source of baseload power. They are essentially on all the time, helping utilities avoid turning to the region’s volatile wholesale energy markets to keep the lights on.

Your electric bill is lower as a result.

But if you are like many Vermonters, you favor not allowing Vermont Yankee’s owners, the big Louisiana-based nuclear power company Entergy, to renew the plant’s federal operating license for another 20 years when it expires in 2012.

This raises formidable legal issues. It is anything but clear that a state can shut down a nuclear plant subject to relicensing under federal law. Lots of Vermonters died on Civil War battlefields to defend federal supremacy.

Moreover, Entergy purchased Vermont Yankee in 2002 pursuant to the terms of a “memorandum of understanding” with the state’s electric utilities, and the state itself, that explicitly gave the Vermont Public Service Board the opportunity to decide whether the plant should operate beyond 2012.

Now the Legislature also claims a right to veto Vermont Yankee’s continued operation. But that “memorandum of understanding” looks a lot like a contract – and Entergy is lawyering up to argue it contractual rights are being violated.

Interestingly, nobody is talking about nuclear power in New Hampshire. Once upon a time, the mere mention of the word “Seabrook” would trigger spasmodic responses in both opponents and proponents of nuclear energy in the Granite State.

Today, Seabrook Station quietly chugs along at 1,200 megawatts (twice the output of Vermont Yankee) for its owners at Florida Power & Light. They bought the place in 2002, but not before the project made Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH) the first electric utility to go bankrupt since the Great Depression.

Now, PSNH claims it has specific authority from New Hampshire’s Legislature to spend nearly a half billion dollars to retrofit its coal plant in Bow to meet required reductions in toxic mercury emissions.

PSNH also thinks it has a bankruptcy-avoiding guarantee that it can recover the cost of the project from its customers. That would have the effect of keeping the plant on line for at least the next 20 years.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide has recently been measured at 385 parts per million. Speaking at Dartmouth in April, renowned NASA climatologist James Hansen said this needs to reduce quickly to 350 parts per million, at the most, to avoid major climate change.

“Practically, that indicts coal,” said Hansen. So they’re lawyering up in New Hampshire as well, hoping to shut down Merrimack Station and spend the half billion elsewhere.

While the lawyers are lawyering, people in both Vermont and New Hampshire should start figuring out how they will replace the power they would lose by shutting down Vermont Yankee and Merrimack Station. Altogether, it’s nearly 1,100 megawatts.

A concrete step for Vermonters: Tell Governor Douglas not to veto the Vermont Energy Act of 2009 when it reaches his desk. Douglas celebrated Earth Day by proclaiming his love of renewable energy, but only if it doesn’t increase anyone’s electric bills.

Governor Freelunch is correct. The Vermont bill modestly subsidizes new renewable energy facilities at ratepayer expense. But the nation’s ratepayers have been providing multi-billion dollar subsidies, both hidden and overt, to nuclear and coal plants for decades.

On both sides of the Connecticut River, our forbears bequeathed us ultra-toxic radioactive waste and a climate at the tipping point, on the verge of chaos. Are we willing to pay the price of revoking such an unconscionable legacy?