Opinions
This measure, which would pay for an energy-efficiency program, should be disturbing to all hard-working Vermonters, and those who are concerned with Vermont's business reputation. It is also very bad environmental policy because it discourages production from a clean energy source.
The Shumlin proposal comes as the Legislature grapples for a way to fund a global warming bill designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions via an expanded energy-efficiency program.
Whether the senator likes to admit it or not, Vermont today has the lowest per capita carbon emissions rate of any state in the country and got there in good part because it gets one-third of its electricity from emission-free Vermont Yankee. Vermont Yankee mitigates the production of more than 4 million tons of carbon dioxide annually that would result otherwise from base-load, fossil-fuel sources. While wind, solar, and other sources of renewable power do have an important role to play in Vermont's energy future, they are intermittent sources and cannot be counted on 2-4/7.
The message the senator is sending to other large businesses in the state, and those considering relocating and creating jobs here is this: "If we think we can take something from you, we will. And we will do it even if your company has given us good deals in the past."
In 2002, when Entergy bought Vermont Yankee it entered into a power purchase agreement projected to save the state's ratepayers $250 million through 2012, based on estimates from the Vermont Department of Public Service. These estimates are in all likelihood too low, as energy prices have risen significantly beyond 2002 projections and Vermont Yankee still only charges 3.95 cents per kilowatt hour for its electricity.
In his Monday press release, Shumlin all but said he is shaking down Vermont Yankee because they cannot do anything about it, stating, "... and it won't affect our energy rates: those are locked in until 2012."
But it will impact those who decide to come to Vermont to do business and employ people. This includes IBM in Essex Junction, which employs thousands of Vermonters and which is already a statewide leader in energy-efficiency programs. It will also affect our children who want to stay here to work and raise families.
It will affect the southeast Vermont regional economy which will see tens of millions of dollars taken from hard-working employees and businesses that do business with Vermont Yankee. And it will affect the amount of power and the price of that power that Vermont Yankee chooses to sell to Vermont in the future.
The senator's audacity is even more disturbing considering that in 2005 Vermont Yankee agreed to finance a fund for renewable energy projects as a condition of obtaining dry-cask storage for spent nuclear fuel at the plant.
Today, there is more than $25 million in the fund, yet the state has barely begun to identify or allocate this money for renewable projects.
The Shumlin proposal formally claims to be taxing "the long-term storage of highly reactive nuclear waste created by Vermont Yankee."
Many, including Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of the environmental group Greenpeace, view used fuel as a resource because it can be recycled into additional fuel, which indeed already happens in most other countries around the world with nuclear facilities.
The state-of-the-art dry-cask containers for Vermont Yankee's spent fuel are widely used in the industry and have an impeccable safety record. Vermonters have already paid significant energy taxes over the past 20 years to have this waste shipped to a federal waste repository. To this end, Sen. Shumlin should use his influence with Sens. Leahy and Sanders to encourage U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to stop obstructing the opening of the Yucca Mountain storage facility in his home state of Nevada.
Whatever Sen. Shumlin's motivation for this measure, it is at best illogical and ill-conceived.
The senator's proposal neither taxes sources of carbon emissions nor does it impose any type of "cap and trade" system in the state. Thus, it fails to address the carbon problem at its source or provide any direct disincentive for additional carbon production.
Legislative hearings on such a large tax would certainly make this clear, while possibly leading to an adjustment of the size of the tax and more sensible funding measures.
With arbitrary enactment of the Shumlin tax, Vermont would send a negative message out to all businesses considering expansion or relocation to the state, while jeopardizing the amount of no emission carbon power it receives, at attractive prices. This would be both unfortunate, unnecessary, and clearly not the Vermont way. Shumlin should end the shakedown of Vermont Yankee now.
Jennifer Clancy, Ph.D., of St. Albans is an environmental scientist and a member of the Vermont Energy Partnership. (www.vtep.org).
| < prev | next > |