Vernon seeks to tax dry cask storage

Vernon seeks to tax dry cask storage

There are 44 comments on the Brattleboro Reformer story from Dec 15, 2010, titled Vernon seeks to tax dry cask storage. In it, Brattleboro Reformer reports that:

The town of Vernon is exploring options to receive a taxable value from stockpiling the spent fuel from Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant after it closes.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Brattleboro Reformer.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
NoNothings

Harwich, MA

#1 Dec 15, 2010
And we thought Vernon was friends with the plant. Guess not
NH Lover

Gardiner, ME

#2 Dec 15, 2010
Ah yes, the greed of Vermonters continues. Such a business freindly state.

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#3 Dec 15, 2010
Greed? Vernon has been Entergy/VY staunchest supporter, making such claims as 'we don't want a green field' & their rep telling Shumlin re VY 'Vernon doesn't want your help'.

Because of Entergy's mismanagement of the plant, giving false information to regulators & all others tasked during relicensing hearings Vernon must also pay the price.

Though 2012 was the scheduled closing date, if they could prove to be a respectable & reliable owner, and in VTs best interest they would have been relicensed.

Well they failed, miserably

Greedy ppl are everywhere. Pretty slim pickins in VT. Not known for attracting the greedy, but thanks for the laugh.

All governments everywhere tax everything they can. Why would anyone expect Vernon not to tax the property including anything they can prove has some value.
John Greenberg

Waterbury, VT

#4 Dec 15, 2010
If memory serves me, the old owners of Vermont Yankee (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation) posted spent fuel as a substantial asset on their balance sheet. Assuming Entergy does so also, this might help establish a value on which to base the tax.
moreonnukes

Westland, MI

#5 Dec 15, 2010
Think again . Obama is for rebuilding new nuke plants. It may not be the end of VY as you wished.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/...
moreonnukes

Westland, MI

#6 Dec 15, 2010
also for you rebel posters its the Republicans also involved .

“The fact is, even though we've not broken ground on a new power plant, new nuclear power plant in 30 years, nuclear energy remains our largest source of fuel that produces no carbon emissions. To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our supply the nuclear power. It's that simple.”

On the other side, the president said that there are those who have long advocated for nuclear power – like Republicans – and called on them to also recognize that there also has to be a system created of incentives to make clean energy profitable.

Simply put its a cleaner energy.
mike mulligan

Charlestown, MA

#7 Dec 15, 2010
moreonnukes wrote:
Think again . Obama is for rebuilding new nuke plants. It may not be the end of VY as you wished.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/...
You got something more up to date.

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#8 Dec 15, 2010
moreonnukes wrote:
Think again . Obama is for rebuilding new nuke plants. It may not be the end of VY as you wished.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/...
Where have you been? The 'nuclear renassiance' is an abject failure.

After 40-ish years, still not able to stand on own feet. No investor will touch it. There is no financing available as it is a risky venture.

The *only* way to even finance npp construction is through loan guarantees, meaning 'we the people' take the risk & are on the hook for exorbitant & costly gambit solely to prop & support nuclear industry.

In 2009-2010, 13 out of 13 times, door slammed on nuclear lobbyists pushing for new consruction locations. Not a very good record. How many plants under construction? One. There is also 'one' other lone plant in US scheduled to begin construction.

Several others have backed out. Fleet owners such as Entergy & Exelon claim new nuclear not profitable & are looking into alternatives including renewables for sources of energy to supply to their clients.

Though Obama is pronuclear, the rightwing is exponentially more gungho, so what transpires as a result of their massive takeover & control in political scene will be interesting.
Howard Shaffer

Portsmouth, NH

#9 Dec 15, 2010
A nuclear renaissance is needed only in the US and a few other countries. The rest of the 32 countries with nuclear power programs never stopped building plants.

China is building nuclear power plants and wind farms, both or which I support. They are trying to get away from using coal, which was the original intent of Congress in initiating our plants. I expect they will pass the US in the number of plants by 2025 or so.
Allen

Putney, VT

#10 Dec 15, 2010
NoNothings wrote:
And we thought Vernon was friends with the plant. Guess not
Of course Vernon has enjoyed the 50% property-tax discount - but they are not stupid. VY will be closing and they will be leaving quite a bit behind, which should be taxed until it is COMPLETELY removed and cleaned up.
mike mulligan

Charlestown, MA

#11 Dec 15, 2010
Howard Shaffer wrote:
A nuclear renaissance is needed only in the US and a few other countries. The rest of the 32 countries with nuclear power programs never stopped building plants.
China is building nuclear power plants and wind farms, both or which I support. They are trying to get away from using coal, which was the original intent of Congress in initiating our plants. I expect they will pass the US in the number of plants by 2025 or so.
China is desperate to contain their severe air pollution problems...it is not too healthy to be desperately defaulting into nuclear program of such magnitude.

They aren't a democracy like us...so we and the nation of China in general never get to see their dirty underwear.

Remember the chief nuclear officer of China was just fired for fraud and incompetence?
Live Freeze or Fry

Walpole, NH

#12 Dec 15, 2010
NH Lover wrote:
Ah yes, the greed of Vermonters continues. Such a business freindly state.
Would you like this radioactive belching, isotope spewing, brittle ass plant in your state then?...so you can save so much and make money money money ya right!
koz

Brecksville, OH

#13 Dec 15, 2010
Live Freeze or Fry wrote:
Would you like this radioactive belching, isotope spewing, brittle **** plant in your state then?...so you can save so much and make money money money ya right!
I would like it right in my front or back yard, literally. Can you move it for me?
In the know

Midway Park, NC

#14 Dec 15, 2010
I hope they don't get one penny for the storage. The Federal Government is lawfully required to store that material (at Yucca Mountain), and the rate payers have been contributing to the fund to pay for it for nearly 30 years. There's over $25 billion sitting in government coffers to cover the costs of storing that fuel. Obama is doing his best to screw it up, but Vermont shouldn't get a cent of money from anywhere but that fund. Nevermind the fact that VY will probably relicense, but if it doesn't, the local "green" knownothings will be to blame, so they should bear the tax burden that they brought upon themselves by closing a completely viable power plant. Guess what? If/when VY closes, its generation will be replaced by COAL........idiots.
Live Freeze or Fry

Walpole, NH

#15 Dec 15, 2010
koz wrote:
<quoted text> I would like it right in my front or back yard, literally. Can you move it for me?
If you bend over I'll put right where it belongs!
geezohman

Branford, CT

#16 Dec 15, 2010
its a SAD day in America. The President of the United States (in 1976) shut down recycle nuclear fuel rods. The President of the United States (in 2010) effectively shut down Yucca Mtn (funding)... truly forcing nuclear plants to continue to store spent fuel rods on site.

This was NOT in the plan for nuke generating sites nor in the original siting plans and license.

Now terrorists have 100 targets to create problems.

All that money spent on the Yucca Mtn, I too as a Governor would 'ask for our money back", Vermont and Maine should to the same.

Wheres the lawyers when we really need them? Having spent fuel on site out in the open... I think its appropriate they store them in 'caskets'... get it caskets?) that should be the message right there !

'playoffs', playoffs?
Bob

Columbus, NE

#17 Dec 15, 2010
Go through those quaint Vermont towns, see the protesters chained to the VY light pole. No billboards or wind gerneration; ruins the landscape dammit! No hydro, those poor fish! Dirty damn coal anyway! Hear that sound? That's Canada licking it's chops to sell all the trust fund babies their electricity. But they don't care about money. It will be all the hardworking New Englanders that will foot the bill. I agree with In the Know. NOT ONE PENNY. Let the people with nothing better to do than protest pay for it and leave the working class alone.
Tom Buchanan

Grand Rapids, MI

#18 Dec 15, 2010
The bigger issue is that the decommissioning budget prepared by Entergy does not include anything for property taxes, although it concludes that taxes would likely be due. The actual property taxes could be substantial. The cost of constructing a new dry fuel storage pad and the related casks will likely be in the neighborhood of $60 -$100 million. If the new construction of a dry fuel pad and casks alone is taxed at 2%, then the annual tax for state and municipal governments would be someplace between $1.2 million and $2 million. Over a 60 year period of SAFSTOR that could amount to as much as $120 million, which is not budgeted. Taken on an annual basis, the projected cost for managing the site and fuel through SAFSTOR is about $6 million (according to Entergy’s Decommissioning Cost Analysis), so an additional $1 -$2 million per year is a substantial unbudgeted element. And of course that doesn’t include the value of the spent fuel, or the value of the remaining property or the other structures.

What is interesting here is that the decommissioning fund is currently established as a fixed amount and must grow through investment return in order to eventually fund decommissioning. If substantial property taxes (and other costs) are subtracted each year it will take much longer for the fund to grow sufficiently to actually fund decommissioning. That creates a conflict between funding current interests (such as taxes), and achieving the earliest possible date for decommissioning.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#19 Dec 15, 2010
Tom Buchanan wrote:
The bigger issue is that the decommissioning budget prepared by Entergy does not include anything for property taxes, although it concludes that taxes would likely be due. The actual property taxes could be substantial. The cost of constructing a new dry fuel storage pad and the related casks will likely be in the neighborhood of $60 -$100 million. If the new construction of a dry fuel pad and casks alone is taxed at 2%, then the annual tax for state and municipal governments would be someplace between $1.2 million and $2 million. Over a 60 year period of SAFSTOR that could amount to as much as $120 million, which is not budgeted. Taken on an annual basis, the projected cost for managing the site and fuel through SAFSTOR is about $6 million (according to Entergy’s Decommissioning Cost Analysis), so an additional $1 -$2 million per year is a substantial unbudgeted element. And of course that doesn’t include the value of the spent fuel, or the value of the remaining property or the other structures.
What is interesting here is that the decommissioning fund is currently established as a fixed amount and must grow through investment return in order to eventually fund decommissioning. If substantial property taxes (and other costs) are subtracted each year it will take much longer for the fund to grow sufficiently to actually fund decommissioning. That creates a conflict between funding current interests (such as taxes), and achieving the earliest possible date for decommissioning.
All great things to think about yet you didnt take into account one major factor. Entergy wont have to pay for those costs of storage of spent fuel. The DOE is on the hook for those costs. If you haven't heard many sites including VY have already sued and won money for storage of fuel costs because the DOE did not hold up there end of the contract. During the lawsuit the court agreed there would be more spent fuel costs going forward and that the utility could go back to court to recoupe those costs. I am sure the reason the costs of spent fuel are not included in decommisioning costs are because they know that the federal government is required to pay them (as the government has already received billions of dollars from rate payers in order to take the fuel.)
Tom Buchanan

Grand Rapids, MI

#20 Dec 15, 2010
hhmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:
<quoted text>
All great things to think about yet you didnt take into account one major factor. Entergy wont have to pay for those costs of storage of spent fuel. The DOE is on the hook for those costs. If you haven't heard many sites including VY have already sued and won money for storage of fuel costs because the DOE did not hold up there end of the contract. During the lawsuit the court agreed there would be more spent fuel costs going forward and that the utility could go back to court to recoupe those costs. I am sure the reason the costs of spent fuel are not included in decommisioning costs are because they know that the federal government is required to pay them (as the government has already received billions of dollars from rate payers in order to take the fuel.)
Not quite true. As I understand the current state of affairs, Entergy has won a case for management of some of their spent fuel for a specific time period in the past. The associated damages haven't been set, and there is no settlement for future damages. DOE will almost certainly be required to pay some kind of damage award for the future storage of SNF, but it is not at all clear what that award will cover, or if it will be even close to the actual cost of storage.

The decommissioning budget does include the cost of managing spent fuel because it is a responsibility of the owner unless and until DOE is compelled to pay those costs. The decommissioning budget does not include anything for property taxes. That could be an especially difficult issue to resolve with DOE, which will probably argue that the federal government, as party with responsibility for managing the fuel, is exempt from tax payments to the states. That is one reason it is so important to settle the tax liability issue when Entergy VY is holding the fuel and is still operating the plant, rather than wait for DOE to take possession of the fuel, and potentially take possession of a new dry fuel storage facility.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Vernon Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Police Log 19 hr Cheddar Cheese 1
News LGBTQ community to celebrate "Earth Gay" in Ver... Mon Chris Ess 30
Looking for Guy Who Tried to Sell Heroin To My Kid (Sep '15) Mon Candles 4
We have too many scumbags in town. (Oct '15) Mon Candles 2
Murder in Brattleboro, 1950 to 1956 (Apr '10) Mon Candles 35
Marble is still missing, and a year of silence? Mon Candles 2
News Two arraigned in I-91 heroin bust (Oct '14) May 12 Anonymous 9
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Vernon Mortgages