Entergy: VY decom fund now only $40 m...

Entergy: VY decom fund now only $40 million short

There are 19 comments on the Brattleboro Reformer story from Oct 30, 2009, titled Entergy: VY decom fund now only $40 million short. In it, Brattleboro Reformer reports that:

In December 2008, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission notified Entergy that the trust fund set aside for the eventual decommissioning of its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon was $87 million short.

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

What-Me-Worry

Arlington, VT

#1 Oct 31, 2009
No they are not only $40 mil short. They are $540 mil short. The method of decommissioning allowed by the NRC is much more lenient than the MOU that Entergy agreed to, which is bringing the site back to greenfield status. The NRC's idea of decommissioning is to toss a tarp over the radioactive carcus and leave it for someone else to deal with 60, 70, 100 years from now.

Vermonters are not accustomed to knowingly screwing their grandkids. Entergy, on the other hand, IS accustomed to knowingly screwing anyone they can. Entergy's own experts say that the cost to decommission the plant will be between $900 mil and $1 bil. Two words for you: COST OVERRUNS

Making a big deal over bringing this fund to the level that it was over a year ago is...not a big deal.
Waste not - go nuclear

Penobscot, ME

#2 Oct 31, 2009
What-Me-Worry wrote:
The NRC's idea of decommissioning is to toss a tarp over the radioactive carcus and leave it for someone else to deal with 60, 70, 100 years from now.
Yet another ignorant anti-nuke who hasn't bothered to learn the first thing about decommissioning before posting his/her ignorant diatribe.

Reminds me of Gary Sach's letter to the editor the other day.
Westmoreland Resident

Worcester, VT

#3 Oct 31, 2009
blah blah blah. Newspaper didn't even accurately name the plant's in the spin. What a joke, how can anyone trust anything printed here?
Defiant1

Deer Park, TX

#4 Oct 31, 2009
Westmoreland Resident wrote:
blah blah blah. Newspaper didn't even accurately name the plant's in the spin. What a joke, how can anyone trust anything printed here?
You can't. The only thing that's usually worth reading is the
comics in this local Pravda.
Right Wing Extremist

Springfield, MA

#5 Oct 31, 2009
It sounds like VY is in much better shape fiscally, than Montpeculiar.
Right Wing Extremist

Springfield, MA

#6 Oct 31, 2009
I don't hear the phony VY budget hawks squawking about the Montpeculiar disaster.
Mike Mulligan

Roslindale, MA

#7 Oct 31, 2009
Remember, this is now a Obama’s show, the NRC is stacked with Obama appointees and a democratic congress and house. If nothing changes something is fishy.

You could consider every act of the NRC as coming from the pen of Obama.
New Clear Waste

Brattleboro, VT

#8 Oct 31, 2009
Waste not - go nuclear wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet another ignorant anti-nuke who hasn't bothered to learn the first thing about decommissioning before posting his/her ignorant diatribe.
Reminds me of Gary Sach's letter to the editor the other day.
Maybe you should inform yourself before embarrassing yourself with ignorant rages on Topix.

Decommissioning and cleanup is estimated to cost in the range of $900 million, not the $400m that the NRC is requiring. This is based on costs incurred at other reactor sites.

One way or another, Vermonters are going to get stuck paying a huge bill for that work. Entergy will high-tail it out of here, leaving Enexus to declare bankruptcy.

You have to be a total Entergy shill to still be trying to hide this fact.
Waste not - go nuclear

Penobscot, ME

#9 Oct 31, 2009
New Clear Moron wrote:
One way or another, Vermonters are going to get stuck paying a huge bill for that work. Entergy will high-tail it out of here, leaving Enexus to declare bankruptcy.
You have to be a total Entergy shill to still be trying to hide this fact.
It's you that is the hypocrite who has been posting lies as "facts" here for some time. You are just as uninformed as the original poster or maybe just a total Shumlin shill.

Keep putting up those strawmen, I'm sure there are enough anti-nuke idiots out there that one or two will eventually believe you.
Yup

Westland, MI

#10 Oct 31, 2009
New Clear Waste wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you should inform yourself before embarrassing yourself with ignorant rages on Topix...
...Entergy will high-tail it out of here, leaving Enexus to declare bankruptcy.
You have to be a total Entergy shill to still be trying to hide this fact.
How is something that could POSSIBLY happen in the future be fact? Talk about embarrassing. It's a good thing you don't use your real name.
hmmmm

Westland, MI

#11 Oct 31, 2009
New Clear Waste wrote:
<quoted text>
One way or another, Vermonters are going to get stuck paying a huge bill for that work. Entergy will high-tail it out of here, leaving Enexus to declare bankruptcy.
You have to be a total Entergy shill to still be trying to hide this fact.
I agree the cost of decommissioning to green field state is going to cost more then the NRC is requiring. There is no debate to that. Entergy has agreed to pay to return it to green field state. With that being said saying that Entergy will high tail it out of here and not do what they have agreed upon is your opinion (or guess.) It is not fact. FACT is something that can be proven, which there is no way for you to prove that. Could you be correct, yeah sure u could be right and they could try, but I believe that they will hold up their end of the bargain. If they don't they can kiss building or owning any other Nuke plants. They can also pretty much give up on building any new power plants of any type. The up to $500 million that they would have to pay at the end (if the fund doesnt grow at all from today) is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money they can make going forward into the future in the energy market.
New Clear Waste

Brattleboro, VT

#12 Oct 31, 2009
hmmmm wrote:
I believe that they [Entergy] will hold up their end of the bargain
Your optimism is sweet; and you might be able to make a plausible argument to that effect, if it weren't for the big Enexus swindle. Can you explain that as anything but a plan to put a layer of insulation between the parent company and future liabilities related to the six nuke plants in question?
hmmmm

Westland, MI

#13 Oct 31, 2009
When I look at the corporate structure of Entergy VY versus the corporate structure of Enexus, there isn't much difference. They both have layers between the parent company (Entergy) and the plant owner (ENVY or Enexus). With enexus the state is getting more legal monetary guarantees from Entergy then they have now. Why would Entergy want to spin of the northern companies from the south? Well I see 2 main financial reasons (plus plenty of smaller financial reasons as well.) 1- The northern plants are all unregulated, and currently when they want to change things in the north they still have to get oks from the regulators in the south (big hassle and costs extra money.) 2. When they build their new nukes they will be in the south where most people are pro nuke unlike this area. Thus the regulated portion of the company (Entergy) wants to get rid of debt in order to have a better position to borrow in order to build their new plants. Entergy's 3 biggest money making nuke plants are part of the spinoff...which makes it easier to pay off the debt. I am sure if things were reversed (north being pro nuke) you would see them trying to spin off the southern plants, in order to build up here as Entergy. Now that is just my financial background talking. The above information is factual, the spinoff would allow the above things to happen. Is that the reason they are doing it? I believe it makes sense, you may not. Just my 2 cents.
Fake-Rob Williams

United States

#14 Nov 1, 2009
Just want to point out that NONE of us are posting using our real names. Fascinating.

That being said--nobody remembered my birthday! So come and wish me a happy birthday, and while you're at it, read what I've said about the decommissioning fund as well as about Vermont Yankee's progress on the 80 promises they made regarding Vermont Yankee's future reliability. http://fakerobwilliams.blogspot.com/2009/11/d...
New Clear Waste

Brattleboro, VT

#15 Nov 1, 2009
hmmmm wrote:
When I look at the corporate structure of Entergy VY versus the corporate structure of Enexus, there isn't much difference. They both have layers between the parent company (Entergy) and the plant owner (ENVY or Enexus). With enexus the state is getting more legal monetary guarantees from Entergy then they have now. Why would Entergy want to spin of the northern companies from the south? Well I see 2 main financial reasons (plus plenty of smaller financial reasons as well.) 1- The northern plants are all unregulated, and currently when they want to change things in the north they still have to get oks from the regulators in the south (big hassle and costs extra money.) 2. When they build their new nukes they will be in the south where most people are pro nuke unlike this area. Thus the regulated portion of the company (Entergy) wants to get rid of debt in order to have a better position to borrow in order to build their new plants. Entergy's 3 biggest money making nuke plants are part of the spinoff...which makes it easier to pay off the debt. I am sure if things were reversed (north being pro nuke) you would see them trying to spin off the southern plants, in order to build up here as Entergy. Now that is just my financial background talking. The above information is factual, the spinoff would allow the above things to happen. Is that the reason they are doing it? I believe it makes sense, you may not. Just my 2 cents.
Thanks for your analysis, I found it interesting and informative.

You are speaking from the point of view of Entergy, why they might be spinning off these plants. From the point of view of Vermont taxpayers and ratepayers, however, there is still the fact that decom and clean-up are likely to cost about $500m more than is in the fund, meaning that more money will have to be sought from the parent company, voluntarily or through legal action by the state. With a smaller parent company in debt to the same value as its physical assets, it seems unlikely that the state could extract the money necessary to complete clean-up.

So what may be a good idea for Entergy is still a bad one for Vermont, and I find Gov. Douglas' complicity extremely suspicious.
Waste not - go nuclear

Penobscot, ME

#16 Nov 1, 2009
New Clear Waste Gets It Wrong Again wrote:
From the point of view of Vermont taxpayers and ratepayers, however, there is still the fact that decom and clean-up are likely to cost about $500m more than is in the fund, meaning that more money will have to be sought from the parent company, voluntarily or through legal action by the state.
It's clear that you haven't bothered to read any of information on the DPS and PSB website concerning the VY decommissioning fund. I will never understand how people can have such strong opinions on things they know so little about.

Glad to see you finally figured out why Entergy was spinning off the merchant nuke plants after the answer was given to you. Bravo!
New Clear Waste

Brattleboro, VT

#17 Nov 1, 2009
Waste not - go nuclear wrote:
<quoted text>
It's clear that you haven't bothered to read any of information on the DPS and PSB website concerning the VY decommissioning fund. I will never understand how people can have such strong opinions on things they know so little about.
Glad to see you finally figured out why Entergy was spinning off the merchant nuke plants after the answer was given to you. Bravo!
You're a 100% stooge. How is reading propaganda supposed to change the debate? And the basic fact remainse: The Enexus swindle is a terrible deal for Vermonters, who are going to wind up with a huge cleanup bill. Sounds like that's not your concern, however.
Waste not - go nuclear

Penobscot, ME

#18 Nov 1, 2009
New Clear Waste Is Clueless wrote:
You're a 100% stooge. How is reading propaganda supposed to change the debate? And the basic fact remainse: The Enexus swindle is a terrible deal for Vermonters, who are going to wind up with a huge cleanup bill. Sounds like that's not your concern, however.
You keep using the word "fact" when it is clear you have no idea of its meaning.

You also have trouble with "propaganda" since I was referring to the expert DPS retained but I guess you wouldn't know that since you are too lazy to learn about something you apparently think is sooo important.

Here's a question, who was responsible for the decommissioning fund prior to Entergy?
flat lander

United States

#19 Nov 2, 2009
40 MILL a big deal for them NOT but for a town budget may be a concern. all one witch side way you "want" to view from. Just like a sports game. was that a good play well one side will always think so .

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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