Following are filings on November 22, 2013 from some of the parties in
Docket 7862. These comments are in response to the Reply Briefs
that were filed on November 8, 2013.
|AT THE VPSB – Entergy asked for an extension of time (from a due date of Nov.8th to Nov.22nd)in which to file board-solicited Comments on the Reply Briefs . Entergy cited new Certificate of Public Good conditions proposed by the Department of Public Service as a reason for the Extension. Entergy said as well, that their lead attorney was awful busy. Conservation Law Foundation said, ”No Objection.” Windham Region Commission and New England Coalition filed objections. NEC pointed out that Entergy filings (the Brief, for example) are typically signed by TEN attorneys AND that Entergy could reasonably have anticipated the DPS proposed conditions – in part because we believe that Entergy and DPS have been in tight one-on-one negotiations to which no other party is privy. NEC asked the Board to warn Entergy that if buying more time for negotiations turned out to be the reason for the requested extra time- sanctions would be in order. Further NEC asked the Board to not allow admission of any settlement or settlement MOU that was not global (involving ALL of the parties. The Board issued an Order granting the extension but chastising Entergy for consulting only with DPS before asking for the extension…and reminding Entergy ALL parties had standing, should be respected, and consulted. I believe that the Board got NEC’s message and the Order reflects it. The Order also stated that new issues had been introduced to the Reply Briefs by WRC and NEC AND reiterated their request that the comments contain a legal brief on those issues.|
OCTOBER 30, 2013
VPSB Orders Opportunity For Additional Argument in VY Case
Full Text of Today’s Vermont Public Service Board Order Follows:
Background And Comment – On August 27th Entergy Corporation, owners of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, surprised employees, supporters, opponents, and regulators alike with an announcement that the Vernon power reactor would go permanently cold and dark in the last quarter of 2014. That same day Entergy also filed what it termed a “Second Amended Petition” for a Certificate of Good for continued operation this time asking the Vermont Public Service Board to okay operation of the plant through to the end of 2014 instead of the originally requested terminus of 2032.
On October 1st, the Board convened a Status Conference of the parties to discuss how to proceed on the new Entergy Petition . The Conference was attended by representatives of Entergy, the Department of Public Service, Vermont Public Interest Research Group, VT. Conservation Law Foundation, Windham Regional Commission, Connecticut River Watershed Council, VT Natural Resources Council, and New England Coalition.
All parties favored no further litigation with respect to the Second Amended Petition except for New England Coalition which contended that the change from an end date of 2032 down to 2014 portended new considerations of the potential loss of best qualified workers “ a dumbing down”) and demoralizing of the workforce, a change in the tempo of community planning, and a need to refocus on decommissioning- now in the near term rather than at a more comfortable distance. Raymond Shadis, freshly assuming the NEC reins (as pro se representative) from Attorney Brice Simon, who left the CPG matter to focus on representing NEC before the Vermont Supreme Court Entergy v. the VPSB Case, told the VPSB, we want process. There are new issues raised by the amended petition that can only be addressed through the introduction of new information. Windham Regional Commission moved the admission of just two additional documents. The VPSB, recessed for 20 minutes to consider NEC’s arguments and return to Order that any proposals for further proceedings and the introduction of new evidence should be filed in writing no later than October 9th 7862 A PROPOSAL -EVIDENCE AND HEARINGS . The Board also moved the filing of Reply (Final) Briefs NEC REPLY BRIEF R-11 in the main case until October 25th; ruling further that the parties could address the second amended petition as add-ons to the main case Reply Brief.
What happened when the parties filed their Reply Briefs on October 25th was that all parties placed a good deal of emphasis on the timing and quality of decommissioning; “validating NEC’s concerns “ said Shadis.“ NEC and several other parties requested that the Board either deny the CPG petition or, in the alternative, impose CPG conditions regarding decommissioning. “We view it,” said Shadis, “as a way for the Board to retain at least some post-operational VY jurisdiction and potentially influence a healthy decommissioning.”
STATE OF VERMONT
Docket No. 7862
Amended Petition of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, ) LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., for ) amendment of their Certificate of Public Good and other ) approvals required under 30 V. SA. § 231(a) for authority ) to continue after March 21, 2012, operation of the ) Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, including the ) storage of spent nuclear fuel )
Order entered: 10/30/2013
ORDER PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY FOR FURTHER COMMENTS
On October 25, 2013, parties to this proceeding filed Reply Briefs and additional Proposed Findings in accordance with the schedule the Public Service Board (“Board”) adopted at the October 1, 2013, Status Conference. Under the schedule, the October 25 filing was intended to be the final filing before issuance of a Board Order ruling on the Second Amended Petition for a Certificate of Public Good (“CPG”) requested by Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (jointly, “Entergy VY”), unless the Board determined that further evidentiary hearings were necessary as a result of the Second Amended Petition. Several of the Reply Briefs and additional Proposed Findings, however, raised issues or contained recommendations that arose as a result of the Second Amended Petition and could not have been reasonably anticipated by other parties. For example, the Department now recommends that the Board issue a CPG that would expire on December 31, 2014, subject to several conditions.
Since parties have not had an opportunity to respond to some of the arguments and recommendations raised in the Reply Briefs and additional Proposed Findings, the Board has determined that it would be useful to provide parties with an opportunity to submit further comments. Such comments must be filed by November 8, 2013. Comments are limited to responding to those elements of the Reply Briefs that contain new arguments and recommendations.
Dated at Montpelier, Vermont, this 30th day of October, 2013.)
s/James Volz )
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE)
s/David C. Coen ) BOARD
) OF VERMONT
s/John D. Burke )
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
FILED: October 30, 2013
ATTEST: s/Judith C. Whitney
Deputy Clerk of the Board
NOTICE TO READERS: This decision is subject to revision of technical errors. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Board (by e-mail, telephone, or in writing) of any apparent errors, in order that any necessary corrections may be made. (E-mail address: firstname.lastname@example.org)