Entergy's spinoff scheme is a warning...

Entergy's spinoff scheme is a warning to Vermonters

There are 29 comments on the Brattleboro Reformer story from Dec 7, 2009, titled Entergy's spinoff scheme is a warning to Vermonters. In it, Brattleboro Reformer reports that:

If the owner of Vermont Yankee, Entergy Corp, issued a warning about Vermont Yankee, would that warning have credibility? Of course it would.

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

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Mike Mulligan

Roslindale, MA

#1 Dec 7, 2009
Just what Vermonters are making money on screwing the rest of Vermont.
You owe a retraction

Hightstown, NJ

#2 Dec 7, 2009
This article is incredibly misleading. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of risk management and the bankruptcy process. Entergy New Orleans went filed for chapter 11 bankrupty which allows for reorganization, and in fact the company is currently operating again, and all creditors were paid in full under the reorganization plan. It didn't walk away from its customers it actually reduced costs for them. See the link for the news release below. Your contention that ETR walks away from weak businesses couldn't be farther from the truth. The nuclear plants are the most valuable part of ETR's business. Spinning them out will allow ETR to more fully realize that value, because it won't be dragged down by the regulated utilities. ETR New Orleans is now a strong, healthy business and all things considered, ETR did a great job of repairing that system in a timely fashion. I find it interesting that you were able to dig up an article from 05 about the bankruptcy from a subscription service (S&P) but couldn't find the news release about the exit from bankrupcty which is publicly available on the website. This is journalism at its worst. If you didn't do your homework, you owe your readers a retraction at the very least. But I think its more likely that you twisted fact that creates a fiction that coincides with your view of the world. Modern day media disgusts me.
http://www.entergy-neworleans.com/content/new...
TNB

Arlington, TN

#3 Dec 7, 2009
He owes a retraction but it will never happen.

In the history of VY those opposed to it's operation have simply ignored simple truth and fact.

They did not want it in the first place and they want to see it closed down now, no matter the impact or circustance of closure. Continued operation will not happen due to mis-truths,half-truths, distortions,and outright lies. Couple this with a left-liberal Dem/Progressive legislature who eats this BS lock, stock and barrel ,I think the plant will close in 12..
Mike Mulligan

Roslindale, MA

#4 Dec 7, 2009
True, but the fruit cakes wouldn’t gain any leverage if they weren’t taking advantage of Energy’s dysfunctions and dishonesty. It is a failure of nuclear ideology...conservative republicanism and Ayn Rand nuclearism.

How do you prematurely close a plant, you need the fruit cakes and then the organizational disorder...remove one of these factors from the equation, and the plant runs for another 20 years. You also get a new fleet of nuclear plants.

I advise getting rid of the fruit cakes.

Mike Mulligan

Roslindale, MA

#5 Dec 7, 2009
Oh did I make a big mistake there.

restated:

I advise “AGAINST” getting rid of the fruit cakes.
Jasper

Passumpsic, VT

#6 Dec 8, 2009
I don't agree with the spinoff for the simple fact that it hurts VY's chances at receiving the extension. The simple truth is that the spinoff hinges on NY allowing it to happen. If NY doesn't allow it to happen then its dead in the water. Entergy needs the ~3000 mW's of power from their three reactors to make this happen.
New Clear Waste

Brattleboro, VT

#7 Dec 8, 2009
Entergy PR Department wrote:
This article is incredibly misleading. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of risk management and the bankruptcy process. Entergy New Orleans went filed for chapter 11 bankrupty which allows for reorganization, and in fact the company is currently operating again, and all creditors were paid in full under the reorganization plan. It didn't walk away from its customers it actually reduced costs for them. See the link for the news release below. Your contention that ETR walks away from weak businesses couldn't be farther from the truth. The nuclear plants are the most valuable part of ETR's business. Spinning them out will allow ETR to more fully realize that value, because it won't be dragged down by the regulated utilities. ETR New Orleans is now a strong, healthy business and all things considered, ETR did a great job of repairing that system in a timely fashion. I find it interesting that you were able to dig up an article from 05 about the bankruptcy from a subscription service (S&P) but couldn't find the news release about the exit from bankrupcty which is publicly available on the website. This is journalism at its worst. If you didn't do your homework, you owe your readers a retraction at the very least. But I think its more likely that you twisted fact that creates a fiction that coincides with your view of the world. Modern day media disgusts me.
http://www.entergy-neworleans.com/content/new...
If you can post a more objective, reliable source regarding the fate of your New Orleans operation, I'll give it a read.
Merry Christmas

South Burlington, VT

#8 Dec 8, 2009
Mike Mulligan wrote:
True, but the fruit cakes wouldn’t gain any leverage if they weren’t taking advantage of Energy’s dysfunctions and dishonesty. It is a failure of nuclear ideology...conservative republicanism and Ayn Rand nuclearism.
How do you prematurely close a plant, you need the fruit cakes and then the organizational disorder...remove one of these factors from the equation, and the plant runs for another 20 years. You also get a new fleet of nuclear plants.
I advise getting rid of the fruit cakes.
The anti nuclear movement,it amounts to little more than the strategy of Gnats.
Opinion not article

Rensselaer, NY

#9 Dec 8, 2009
There's a difference between an opinion piece (which this was) and an article. You should feel free to offer your own opinion piece as a rebuttal. If you take the attitude that you won't because they'll never print it, that's just a chicken&%#! excuse.
mike mulligan

Roslindale, MA

#10 Dec 8, 2009
Merry Christmas wrote:
<quoted text>The anti nuclear movement,it amounts to little more than the strategy of Gnats.
They carried the message over the decades, certainly in the beginning when there wasn’t a voice to be heard at all. We all would have been a lot less safe and informed if they weren’t around.

They have created a huge shaddow over the operation of that plant over the years.
herewegoagain

Little Rock, AR

#11 Dec 8, 2009
New Clear Waste wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can post a more objective, reliable source regarding the fate of your New Orleans operation, I'll give it a read.
Would Reuters suffice?
www.reuters.com/article/idUSWEN764920070503

I copy and pasted the article below (take notice to the second paragraph):

A federal bankruptcy judge approved Entergy New Orleans's (ETR.N) reorganization plan on Thursday, clearing the way for the utility that was hit hard by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 to emerge from bankruptcy proceedings, the company said.

Under the plan, the utility, a unit of Entergy Corp., will fully compensate all its creditors.

Judge Jerry Brown is expected to sign the order approving the reorganization within the week, the company said, and Entergy New Orleans will exit Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings the next business day.
New Clear Waste

Brattleboro, VT

#12 Dec 8, 2009
herewegoagain wrote:
<quoted text>
Would Reuters suffice?
www.reuters.com/article/idUSWEN764920070503
I copy and pasted the article below (take notice to the second paragraph):
A federal bankruptcy judge approved Entergy New Orleans's (ETR.N) reorganization plan on Thursday, clearing the way for the utility that was hit hard by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 to emerge from bankruptcy proceedings, the company said.
Under the plan, the utility, a unit of Entergy Corp., will fully compensate all its creditors.
Judge Jerry Brown is expected to sign the order approving the reorganization within the week, the company said, and Entergy New Orleans will exit Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings the next business day.
Better. Thanks.

Not answered by the article: Did ENY return to power production? If so, let's assume it is profitable again. Also, did the parent company re-invest in ENY to return it to operations?

Next question: If a bankrupt subsidiary does NOT remain profitable, what will Entergy do then? If VY does not receive a license extension, for example, who can say that Entergy wouldn't just cut it loose and leave Vermonters to pay for the cleanup, or at least the half-billion dollars of the estimated decom cost not banked in the dedicated fund?

That's the real question in our case.
observer

Little Rock, AR

#13 Dec 8, 2009
TNB wrote:
He owes a retraction but it will never happen.
In the history of VY those opposed to it's operation have simply ignored simple truth and fact.
They did not want it in the first place and they want to see it closed down now, no matter the impact or circustance of closure. Continued operation will not happen due to mis-truths,half-truths, distortions,and outright lies. Couple this with a left-liberal Dem/Progressive legislature who eats this BS lock, stock and barrel ,I think the plant will close in 12..
So very true!!
Gretna LA

Brattleboro, VT

#14 Dec 8, 2009
We are waiting and hoping for the Reformer to go into bankruptcy, so that we can buy it, and then once and for all we will put an end to the nuisance of people publicly questioning the reliability of our nearly-new pre-owned nuke plant and our private business practices.
Ron

New Haven, CT

#15 Dec 9, 2009
The first thing I ask any avid pro or con nuclear proponent is if they would quickly describe to me the difference between "fission" and "fusion", and sketch a quick crude fission based reactor design on a napkin for me. For anybody who knows what they are talking about, both are actually very easy. For anybody just repeating what others say - it sounds like a laughably complex task.

If you DON'T really understand how this stuff works, then you are just being religious about it basically: picking which 'guru' you want to believe (pro or con nuclear) and following them. And there are skilled and educated guru's on both sides of every argument.

If you don't really understand the benefits and risks of a process, by having a basic understanding of the process? You are an idiot to spout strong opinions about it.
Noel

Rutland, VT

#16 Dec 9, 2009
mike mulligan wrote:
<quoted text>
They carried the message over the decades, certainly in the beginning when there wasn’t a voice to be heard at all. We all would have been a lot less safe and informed if they weren’t around.
They have created a huge shaddow over the operation of that plant over the years.
You know Mike, "they" created a huge shadow over childhood immunizations over the years too. "They" claimed that vaccinatations caused Autism in children. Parents refused to immunize their children against very dangerous diseases and children died because of it. The crime is that even though research has time and time again proven no connection between vaccinations and Autism, this urban myth keeps on killing children! Where is the connection with some Autism? "...A statistically significant link between pounds of industrial release of mecury and increased autism rates. It also shows-for the first time in scientific literature-a statistically significant association between autism risk and distance from the mecury source."..."The new study findings are consistent with a host of other studies that confirm higher amounts of mercury in plants, animals and humans the closer they are to the pollution source. The price on the children may be the highest." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/... Science Daily - Autism Risk Linked To Distance From Power Plants, Other Meury-releasing Sources.

So Mike, while "they" were creating a false shadow over VY and other nuclear power plants, Coal fired plants continued to spew mecury into our environment.
mike mulligan

Roslindale, MA

#17 Dec 9, 2009
You got to be a nuclear power plant employee, you didn’t even test your sciencedaily autism link after you put it up on the internet. All you nuke employees are just lazy and careless?

It is a dead link.

The game is not about choosing the least worst relative sins between coal and nuclear power...in this area it is about can Entergy’s and the nuclear industry’s word be trusted? We only choose president’s through the least worst method.
Noel

Rutland, VT

#18 Dec 9, 2009
mike mulligan wrote:
You got to be a nuclear power plant employee, you didn’t even test your sciencedaily autism link after you put it up on the internet. All you nuke employees are just lazy and careless?
It is a dead link.
The game is not about choosing the least worst relative sins between coal and nuclear power...in this area it is about can Entergy’s and the nuclear industry’s word be trusted? We only choose president’s through the least worst method.
It would be easier for you if I were an employee? That is broken logic.

I did site the source for you, appoligize if the link is broken, just google the source.
Noel

Rutland, VT

#19 Dec 9, 2009
Ok now i see what the problem is with the link. So many articles exist about the link between coal fired plants / mucury that it would take too long to sift for the one I sited. try this; Click on the link that I provided to ScienceDaily and type in the following: Autism Risk Linked To Distance From Prower Plants, Other Mecury-Releasing Sources and for the date of the article type in 2008. That should bring you there.
BTW Mike, it was you who brought up the "shadow" I was merely informing you of the very real and present dangers of such invented shadows.
mike mulligan

Roslindale, MA

#20 Dec 9, 2009
So you want the least worst of two evils...but I think we deserve the best possible choice. If I choose nuclear power then I want them to be the best organization that money can buy. I am sick and tired of playing coal off against the nuclear when they are basically both mismanage by the general electric utility industry itself.

I once thought that the only thing that is going to save us from global warming and energy insufficiency was education and technological innovation...our creativity.

I think the only battle with GW and energy insufficiency is sufficient income so we can have the luxury to afford enough energy and green energy.

The battle for the world is about a way for us to invent a way to massively increase the income of the bottom 75% of us. Then we can afford the value added on green electricity

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
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.

Entergy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Weird 29 mins ago 7:16 p.m.Bird droppings blame... (Mar '16) Mar '16 Rubio s Foam Partays 4
News S&WB taps New Orleans capital projects director... (Jan '14) Jan '14 setup 1
News Entergy Provides Preliminary Third Quarter Earn... (Oct '13) Oct '13 Fukushima Radiati... 1
News Entergy Corp. (ETR) Updates FY13 Earnings Guidance (Oct '13) Oct '13 Fukushima Radiati... 1
News Entergy Recognized as Worldwide Leader in Clima... (Oct '13) Oct '13 Fukushima Radiati... 1
News Nuclear power plant in Mississippi emits smoke ... (Sep '13) Sep '13 BDV 2
News VY still lobbies for new license (Oct '10) Oct '12 Mike Mulligan 134
More from around the web