NY PSC is still vexed over possible Entergy spin off

Full story: Brattleboro Reformer

When Entergy learned its plan to spin off five of its nuclear power plants into a new, wholly independent company was in jeopardy of being nixed by both the New York Public Service Commission and the Vermont Public Service Board, CEO J. Wayne Leonard said Entergy might consider the option of spinning off its seven other nuclear power plants ...
Comments
1 - 20 of 49 Comments Last updated Aug 30, 2010
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#2 Aug 23, 2010
Electric Power Daily (20-Aug-10)

New York began pre-emptive action Thursday to protect the financial integrity of Entergy's nuclear plants, opening up a show-cause proceeding that could lead to new reporting rules for the company.

The public service commission said it wants the opportunity to review any possible financial changes made by Entergy that could significantly affect the economic strength of its two nuclear power plants: the James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Station in Oswego County and Indian Point Energy Center in Westchester County.

Should the commission go forward with the proposed rule, Entergy will be required to provide a 60-day notice of any transaction that could impair the financial integrity of the nuclear plants, including activities not now under the commission's jurisdiction.

The commission's action sprang from Entergy's earlier attempt to spin off 5,000 MW of nuclear assets in New York, Vermont, Massachusetts and Michigan into a new company, Enexus. The New York commission nixed the idea in March out of concern that the new company could not meet financial requirements set by the state to safeguard ratepayers.

At the time, commissioners expressed concern that with the spin-off idea off the table, Entergy might pursue another, unspecified financial strategy that would preclude commission authority. Garry Brown, PSC chairman, had said he was worried the company might attempt something "creative." Now the commission is attempting to ward off that possibility.

James Denn, commission spokesman, said the state is not aware of any specific plans by Entergy at this time, but decided to pursue the pre-emptive action because the plants play an important role in New York's supply mix.

"The commission is saying,'Hold on a second. Let's start thinking about a formal rule which would require Entergy to notify the commission if something would occur,'" said Denn.

Mike Burns, Entergy spokesman, said the company will have no comment until it has an opportunity to review the order. The commission expects to issue the written show-cause order in the next few days. Entergy will have 30 days to respond to the PSC.

The PSC rejected the spin-off after its staff warned that the new company would have a risky business profile with a lower credit rating than Entergy's. The commission feared that could mean higher cost of debt for the merchant nuclear plants, adding to the risk of bankruptcy.

Entergy had proposed transferring indirect ownership interest to Enexus. In return, Entergy shareholders would eventually have received all of Enexus's capital stock and cash and reductions in outstanding debt worth about $3.5 billion. Upon completion of the transaction, the shares of Entergy and Enexus would have traded independently and Enexus and Entergy would have been separate, unaffiliated entities.- Lisa Wood
http://www.plattsenergyweektv.com/story.aspx...
Todd

Jamaica, VT

#3 Aug 23, 2010
And we are supposed to trust Entergy?
Fran

Newfane, VT

#4 Aug 23, 2010
The sole reason any LLC is formed is to assure that the company can avoid legal and financial responsibility if something goes wrong. It is no coincidence that Entergy wants to "spin off" the ownership of aging plants that will require a great deal of investment to remain viable... investing money in these plants is the LAST thing that Entergy wants to do.

Buy 'em and flip 'em, that is their history and that is how their stockholders make money. Hooray that NY and VT refuse to roll over for it.

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#5 Aug 23, 2010
I wonder when VT will wake up & get around to doing the same thing as NY.

Funny, it was also NY that said no to Enexus if VT Yankee in the mix. How funny-what does that tell us about our rotting nuclear waste dump on the banks of Conn.

Also finally, it was NY that nixed it altogether, while Entergy mascot O'Brien initially jumped on it like a kid on a cupcake. He said 'Yes, boss' before they asked.

Bill Irwin jealous that he didn't get a chance to say 'Yes, boss'. But, he has had many chances & will have many more I'm sure.

The PSB never ruled, but rather recently, finally got around to withdrawing their support after Entergy had already pulled the plug.

Looks like they never actually did pull that plug, but huddled behind closed doors, plotting, er planning, Enexus II.

But wait, there's more, as usual. When do they ever sleep. No rest for the wicked?

"Summation for 2009 to 2010 Legislative Year For the Joint Fiscal Committee Reliability Oversight of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee" report to the JFC.

page 16 of 21:
- Possible impact on decommissioning in Enexus aftermath
"The last Fairewinds Associates report to the JFC discussed the potential problems associated with the Enexus spinoff from Entergy. Since our report was written, both Vermont and New York have rejected the Enexus spinoff.

While this is positive news, Entergy has suggested that it has a legal approach to create a junk-bond holding company without seeking approval of either Vermont or New York.

Specifically, Entergy CEO J. Wayne Leonard has suggested that Entergy might keep its corporate name on the six old nuclear assets it had planned to spin off as Enexus while at the same time creating a new

Page 17 of 21

and different corporation that would contain all of Entergy’s assets and its newer nuclear plants. Without the corporate name being changed, Vermont and New York State might be unable to intervene.

Basically Entergy would strip the assets out of Vermont Yankee and other older nuclear reactors as they planned to do with the Enexus spinoff, but without State involvement.

To our knowledge Entergy has not yet begun the legal process of moving its assets to a new corporation. Our concern should this corporate change occur is that there would not be enough money to ever fully decommission Vermont Yankee unless the State of Vermont paid for the clean-up."

even more sketchyness:
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/VY%20Legislati...

Could be turned into a Shakespearean-style tragedy (Comedy? Both?) complete w/our very own regulators & D'OH! conspiring w/Entergy no doubt.

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#6 Aug 23, 2010
Fran wrote:
The sole reason any LLC is formed is to assure that the company can avoid legal and financial responsibility if something goes wrong. It is no coincidence that Entergy wants to "spin off" the ownership of aging plants that will require a great deal of investment to remain viable... investing money in these plants is the LAST thing that Entergy wants to do.
Buy 'em and flip 'em, that is their history and that is how their stockholders make money. Hooray that NY and VT refuse to roll over for it.
This is round 2, the resurection of Enexus I.

VT hasn't said anything yet, Gundersen just released their report 8/12/2010 warning JFC of the plan which appears to be in the offing.

No wonder they want VY relicensed-kinda difficult to doublecross employees & spin off a plant that's been shuttered.
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/VY%20Legislati...
ScumDog

Harwich, MA

#7 Aug 23, 2010
We look forward to more comments of support for these pieces of dogs__t who run Entergy. Howard Schaffer where are you? Can't wait to hear you defend these creeps who are working overtime to screw everyone and everything in sight.

Their job is to avoid responsibility for the failure of their plants (and this technology) at all costs. Guys like Schaffer and other supporters of Entergy are falling right in behind them. It's disgusting.

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#8 Aug 23, 2010
Interesting name. Hmm. The spin coming from these sketchy characters is dizzying. After reading their mangled bs, my head hurts.

Can't believe they didn't catch their namesake in the name...Freudian slip? Freudian confession? Both?

Nuclear "SpinCo"

Thursday 18 March 2010

by: World Business Academy, truthout | Op-Ed

The nuclear industry, like Wall Street, knows how to make money with other people's money: move liabilities off balance sheet, use lots of borrowed money and leverage, don't worry about loading too much debt onto the company as long as insiders can walk away with plenty of money and look to the fool taxpayer to cover the losses.
http://www.truth-out.org/nuclear-spinco57793
Mike Mulligan

Roslindale, MA

#9 Aug 23, 2010
No balls entergy!

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#10 Aug 23, 2010
I see VT regulators right on their job fending off the wolves in sheeps clothing from ravaging VT re the newest debacle.
hmmmmmmmmmm

Brattleboro, VT

#11 Aug 23, 2010
I didn't want to see VY spun off and glad that was undone. Honestly I could care less if they spin off the southern regulated plants. If they spin off the southern plants then VY will still be part of the parent company. The southern plants being spun off will not make the parent company weak. The parent company owns many non nuke power generation plants. They are also a huge power company transmitting and selling power to 2.7 million residents and businesses in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. I am hardpressed to believe that Entergy selling a few nukes off in the south will change their bottom line.

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#12 Aug 23, 2010
hmmmmmmmmmm wrote:
I didn't want to see VY spun off and glad that was undone. Honestly I could care less if they spin off the southern regulated plants. If they spin off the southern plants then VY will still be part of the parent company. The southern plants being spun off will not make the parent company weak. The parent company owns many non nuke power generation plants. They are also a huge power company transmitting and selling power to 2.7 million residents and businesses in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. I am hardpressed to believe that Entergy selling a few nukes off in the south will change their bottom line.
VT & NY are not 'southern plants' & they're not 'selling them off'. Where in this atricle or another source is your information detailed?

Any plants being sold off, or terms changed affects the plants w/in that particular fleet.

This was released 8/12/2010:
page 16 of 21:
- Possible impact on decommissioning in Enexus aftermath
"The last Fairewinds Associates report to the JFC discussed the potential problems associated with the Enexus spinoff from Entergy. Since our report was written, both Vermont and New York have rejected the Enexus spinoff.

While this is positive news, Entergy has suggested that it has a legal approach to create a junk-bond holding company without seeking approval of either Vermont or New York.

Specifically, Entergy CEO J. Wayne Leonard has suggested that Entergy might keep its corporate name on the six old nuclear assets it had planned to spin off as Enexus while at the same time creating a new

Page 17 of 21

and different corporation that would contain all of Entergy’s assets and its newer nuclear plants. Without the corporate name being changed, Vermont and New York State might be unable to intervene.

Basically Entergy would strip the assets out of Vermont Yankee and other older nuclear reactors as they planned to do with the Enexus spinoff, but without State involvement.

To our knowledge Entergy has not yet begun the legal process of moving its assets to a new corporation. Our concern should this corporate change occur is that there would not be enough money to ever fully decommission Vermont Yankee unless the State of Vermont paid for the clean-up."
Tom Buchanan

Springfield, MA

#13 Aug 23, 2010
northstardust wrote:
The PSB never ruled, but rather recently, finally got around to withdrawing their support after Entergy had already pulled the plug.
The PSB did rule, and denied the application for the spin off after Entergy made public statements that the plan was being withdrawn. The 23 page PSB Order is far different than simply "withdrawing their support." You can read the final Order of the Board at: http://psb.vermont.gov/sites/psb/files/orders...
Solar Bomb

Little Rock, AR

#14 Aug 23, 2010
I've noticed over the last couple of months that NSD tends to fill these comment boards with layers of half-truths, mis-quotes, name calling, etc. Until someone posts a re-futable link that demostrates that once agian NSD while good at typing, isn't really very well informed.

Then NSD goes on to another thread, tail between legs.

Of course NSD will be back to call me names, but Tom has esstentially ended this tread for NSD :), LOL
Howard Shaffer

Swanzey, NH

#15 Aug 23, 2010
A post by "ScumDog" referred to me, I believe, although they didn't spell my name correctly. I don't mind, since it is a name that has many spellings.

Speaking of names, I and some others use our real names. We are not afraid of being identified with our views. We are not afraid of being identified at all. Can someone tell me why so many hide behind "cute" names?

Entergy Vermont Yankee is a profit making company, engaged in a business for the public good. They and I believe it is a public good, just like the wind company and solar power companies in the state. Note that the a wind company recently threatened to leave the state if they don't get the tax credits from the state! All businesses have the duty to their owners, and the right, to use the provisions of the law to protect themselves. Especially in this era when contingency fee lawyers can "chase ambulances" by running tv adds.

If there is so much objection to an out of state company owning Vermont Yankee, why was the ownership not left with the Vermont utilites? Can someone explain that to me?

Speaking of distant ownership, the company that owns the wind farm here in New Hampshire, and was proposing one in Vermont is in Spain. Is this OK because its not nuclear?

Finally, I don't support everything VY has done, and embarassed by a few things. But I realize that nothing is perfect. VY is safe and reliable, and I support them. How else could they have run 350+ days? Some opponents are on a crusade to end all nuclear power, as stated by Ms.Katz on the State House steps on April 29, 2009. They want to "throw out the baby with the bath water."

The "Eugenics Grannies" are using outdated science to spread scare stories. See the "Yes,Vermont Yankee" blog. The Belarus governement realizes the scare story they were sold after the terrible Chernobyl accident and are now repopulating evacuated towns.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Little Rock, AR

#16 Aug 23, 2010
northstardust wrote:
<quoted text>
VT & NY are not 'southern plants' & they're not 'selling them off'. Where in this atricle or another source is your information detailed?
Any plants being sold off, or terms changed affects the plants w/in that particular fleet.
This was released 8/12/2010:
page 16 of 21:
- Possible impact on decommissioning in Enexus aftermath
"The last Fairewinds Associates report to the JFC discussed the potential problems associated with the Enexus spinoff from Entergy. Since our report was written, both Vermont and New York have rejected the Enexus spinoff.
While this is positive news, Entergy has suggested that it has a legal approach to create a junk-bond holding company without seeking approval of either Vermont or New York.
Specifically, Entergy CEO J. Wayne Leonard has suggested that Entergy might keep its corporate name on the six old nuclear assets it had planned to spin off as Enexus while at the same time creating a new
Page 17 of 21
and different corporation that would contain all of Entergy’s assets and its newer nuclear plants. Without the corporate name being changed, Vermont and New York State might be unable to intervene.
Basically Entergy would strip the assets out of Vermont Yankee and other older nuclear reactors as they planned to do with the Enexus spinoff, but without State involvement.
To our knowledge Entergy has not yet begun the legal process of moving its assets to a new corporation. Our concern should this corporate change occur is that there would not be enough money to ever fully decommission Vermont Yankee unless the State of Vermont paid for the clean-up."
NSD, did you read the article?? This is about Entergy spinning off their regulated (aka southern) plants. The plants in new england are merchant (aka unregulated) plants. NY is worried that is they spin off their southern nuke plants into a seperate company (like the plan for the northen plants) then it will make parent company entergy too weak. Entergy said from day one they wanted to do the spin off so they could seperate the regulated and unregulated plants. By dseperating them they do not have to get permission from southern regulators for things they do in the north. It does make sense. As I stated above if they sell off the southern nukes then Entergy is still a huge corporation with deep pockets.

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#17 Aug 23, 2010
Solar Bomb wrote:
I've noticed over the last couple of months that NSD tends to fill these comment boards with layers of half-truths, mis-quotes, name calling, etc.
Nice try Tom, however you failed. Solar Bomb, you are both wrong once again.

Well my friends, I'm going to have to go ahead & disagree w/you, m'kay.

I see you are very anxious to put the screaming baby to bed, however you cannot. Baby now can walk, does what it pleases, has taken on a life of its own, states & regulatory boards be damned.

The entire thread is re the reviving of Enexus w/o having to go through regulatory process. You both know this & Toms explanation of PSB ruling had nothing to do w/anything as I was referiing to the PSB entering a ruling of ANY kind which it did just recently.

I have never gone to any thread 'w/tail between legs', kindly prove it sir or wire it as it is simply more of your now well known lies.

More shoot messenger nonsense, as you along w/others simply have no facts & use fearmongering lies & halftruths in an attmpt to spin stories that are untruthful, or partly true.

This is no accident as most lies ride on the backs of truth.

You cannot name any, I say you are fos & lying. Btw, not name calling to call a shovel a spade.

Your claim 'if VY's MW removed from grid & it isn't replaced-the lights go out." A patently false statement aka a 'lie'. There is a surplus on the grid of up to 5000MW, VY is less than 2%@ present. Only one of your many.

This report was issued 8/12/2010. Did something happen to negate this possibility which has been recognized as an option by Entergy since before it was nixed by the states? If not, your poit invalid, information fallacious merely another smoke screen.

Until the decom money in the bank it does not exist. If Entergy bargaining in good faith & intended to keep its agreement the money would be in there, esp since there have been attempts to raid it & other attempts to not ante up as well.

Once again:
Summation for 2009 to 2010 Legislative Year For the Joint Fiscal Committee Reliability Oversight of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee" report to the JFC.

page 16 of 21:
- Possible impact on decommissioning in Enexus aftermath
"The last Fairewinds Associates report to the JFC discussed the potential problems associated with the Enexus spinoff from Entergy. Since our report was written, both Vermont and New York have rejected the Enexus spinoff.

While this is positive news, Entergy has suggested that it has a legal approach to create a junk-bond holding company without seeking approval of either Vermont or New York.

Specifically, Entergy CEO J. Wayne Leonard has suggested that Entergy might keep its corporate name on the six old nuclear assets it had planned to spin off as Enexus while at the same time creating a new

Page 17 of 21

and different corporation that would contain all of Entergy’s assets and its newer nuclear plants. Without the corporate name being changed, Vermont and New York State might be unable to intervene.

Basically Entergy would strip the assets out of Vermont Yankee and other older nuclear reactors as they planned to do with the Enexus spinoff, but without State involvement.

To our knowledge Entergy has not yet begun the legal process of moving its assets to a new corporation. Our concern should this corporate change occur is that there would not be enough money to ever fully decommission Vermont Yankee unless the State of Vermont paid for the clean-up."

Please note: You have not & cannot refute this. If you can, do it & stop your chit-chattering

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#18 Aug 23, 2010
hmmmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:
<quoted text>
NSD, did you read the article?? This is about Entergy spinning off their regulated (aka southern) plants. The plants in new england are merchant (aka unregulated) plants. NY is worried that is they spin off their southern nuke plants into a seperate company (like the plan for the northen plants) then it will make parent company entergy too weak. Entergy said from day one they wanted to do the spin off so they could seperate the regulated and unregulated plants. By dseperating them they do not have to get permission from southern regulators for things they do in the north. It does make sense. As I stated above if they sell off the southern nukes then Entergy is still a huge corporation with deep pockets.
In the front door & out the back door, in the back door out the front door-does it really matter as long as results the same? If it did not affect other plants, it would not be an issue. And, Gundersens claim is still the most important componant of how this affects VT.

Funny, this story actually oldish & action by NY regulatory board came a week after the report to JFC.

Gundersen presaged several of the other mishaps & machinations re Entergy so I will take his word before yours.

The move, whatever it entails, signals activity to rearrange the reactors to a structure which would compromise their ability to pay liabilities which is the idea my friend. All states need to get Entergy to ante up while it still can, or create their own structure for dealing w/the consequences should tghis take place is the main point.

(20-Aug-10)"New York began pre-emptive action Thursday to protect the financial integrity of Entergy's nuclear plants, opening up a show-cause proceeding that could lead to new reporting rules for the company.

Entergy will be required to provide a 60-day notice of any transaction that could impair the financial integrity of the nuclear plants, including activities not now under the commission's jurisdiction."
http://www.plattsenergyweektv.com/story.aspx...
Howard Shaffer

Swanzey, NH

#19 Aug 23, 2010
All reactors have been paying two separate charges for years, as a requirement of their licenses.

1- Used fuel disposal. 0.1 cents per kw-hr sold.
2- Decommissioning - 0.1 cents per kw-hr until fund is sufficient.

The money is in the bank, controlled by the NRC. The plants can't get it out for their own use.(Congress is pretty sharp.)

Plants have sued the government to get the used fuel money back, because the government didn't take the used fuel the way the law says. So the plants had to spend extra money for used fuel casks for on site storage. Why didn't the government take the used fuel? No place to put it. Why not? Anti-nukes in Nevada opposed Yucca Mountain, and Senator Reid demagoged it. Now Vermont anti nukes can blame VY for "not doing anything about the used fuel." What a deal!! The antis get to blame the government and the plants as a result of their policy of throwing sand in all the gears they can find.
The Eugenics Grannies say that any amount of radiation is harmful, then sit in the sun to protest. If they believed what they say, the would demonstrate at night! Unless they are so uninformed that they don't know that the sun's radiation, both what we can see and feel and what we can't. is nuclear radiation!

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#20 Aug 24, 2010
Howard Shaffer wrote:
All reactors have been paying two separate charges for years, as a requirement of their licenses.
1- Used fuel disposal. 0.1 cents per kw-hr sold.
2- Decommissioning - 0.1 cents per kw-hr until fund is sufficient.
The money is in the bank, controlled by the NRC. The plants can't get it out for their own use.(Congress is pretty sharp.)
Plants have sued the government to get the used fuel money back, because the government didn't take the used fuel the way the law says. So the plants had to spend extra money for used fuel casks for on site storage. Why didn't the government take the used fuel? No place to put it. Why not? Anti-nukes in Nevada opposed Yucca Mountain, and Senator Reid demagoged it. Now Vermont anti nukes can blame VY for "not doing anything about the used fuel." What a deal!! The antis get to blame the government and the plants as a result of their policy of throwing sand in all the gears they can find.
The Eugenics Grannies say that any amount of radiation is harmful, then sit in the sun to protest. If they believed what they say, the would demonstrate at night! Unless they are so uninformed that they don't know that the sun's radiation, both what we can see and feel and what we can't. is nuclear radiation!
Pardon me sir, topic is not about 'eugenics grannys'. Not so nice try to change it. Did you ever hear of 'sunscreen'? Its quite popular w/those who need or wish to be in the sun & appears to protect skin from harmful burns as well as radiation... More fearmongering & illogical screaming of 'nuclear radiation' in attempt to tar entire issue. Didn't work btw.

Public should make the choice re how much dose we wish to recieve not the industry. NRC which sets their 'safety standards' to accomodate the industry, not the public.

If what you are saying is true re fuel disposal & decom, kindly prove it please w/a relevant link or source-in English. I do not think this has an affect on the plant decom fund-if so plz explain. Funny, no one else seems to see it your way-why is that? Perhaps it is only 'partly true' like most of your comments? Did you know that most lies ride on the backs of truth? You apparently are attempting to claim that the story is is irrellevant b/c of these 'little-known facts'? If not, plz clarify your point.

1. None of your nonsense plz nor map & directions to congressional library. Those do not count.

2. Waving it away w/'look it up on NRC website' doesn't count either.
Cosmic Howdy

AOL

#21 Aug 24, 2010
Hey, Northstardust. I for one want to Thank you for your Time , information and work on this isssue. If there was more transparency by this company , all these many layered pro ,confusing arguments would be unecessary . Simple ,truthful, straightford answers would save people alot of angst, and work ..........Maybe, just maybe they would leave the Grannies alone. What does Grannies have to do with anything ? Another smokescreen ? Some of us have respect for Grannies. They still care enough, to put themselves out there .They are still citzens of the USA . Leave them alone.Having to put sunscreen on is a little different than cooling towers collasping. Pipes rusting ,rivers being boiled and polluted.Defend Yankees lack of upkeep .... go ahead explain how a tower collaspes. How they don't know what a pipe is . What Pipe ? Go ahead .Explain the facts . Maybe i'll listen to the rest of your arguments about suncreen , fish getting polluted in russia and the rest of their ridiculous excuses.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Entergy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
S&WB taps New Orleans capital projects director... (Jan '14) Jan '14 setup 1
Entergy Provides Preliminary Third Quarter Earn... (Oct '13) Oct '13 Fukushima Radiati... 1
Entergy Corp. (ETR) Updates FY13 Earnings Guidance (Oct '13) Oct '13 Fukushima Radiati... 1
Entergy Recognized as Worldwide Leader in Clima... (Oct '13) Oct '13 Fukushima Radiati... 1
Nuclear power plant in Mississippi emits smoke ... (Sep '13) Sep '13 BDV 2
VY still lobbies for new license (Oct '10) Oct '12 Mike Mulligan 134
Troubled Michigan nuclear plant shut down for m... (Apr '12) Apr '12 BDV 1
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Entergy People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••