The Pragmatist

The Vermont legislature just made the state’s, and the College’s, budget struggle even more difficult when it voted 26-4 Wednesday against the 20-year extension of the license of Vermont Yankee, Vermont’s only nuclear power plant. Vermont Yankee has been operating since 1966 and was scheduled to close in 2012.

The closure of Vermont Yankee offers troubling prospects for energy costs paid by Vermonters and by the College.

Vermont Yankee currently supplies over one-third of Vermont’s energy. The College gets its power from Central Vermont Public Service, which in turn sources the majority of its power from Hydro Quebec and — you guessed it — Vermont Yankee.

An independent study commissioned by the Vermont Energy Partnership estimates that the closure of Vermont Yankee will cause energy costs to increase by between 19 and 39 percent.

So if energy prices are going to shoot up, what were legislators thinking? First of all, Vermont Yankee was scheduled to close in 2012 for a reason: after that, the safety of the plant would have become a huge concern.

The safety of the plant was already called into question when a cooling tower collapsed in 2007 and several weeks ago when the plant reported a leak of radioactive tritium from underground pipes, the existence of which the plant had previously denied.

On the whole, nuclear power is safe and green, and although safety is a serious concern when looking at extending the production life of aging plants like Vermont Yankee, it should not keep us from building new nuclear plants.

Considering the safety implications for extensively prolonging Vermont Yankee, the Vermont legislature acted in an appropriately cautious manner in voting not to extend the plant’s production life for another 20 years. Nevertheless, the cost consequences mean that the legislature needs to get a little more creative.

It is not safe to extend Vermont Yankee’s license for an additional 20 years, but the inevitable hike in energy costs will pose too great a burden on Vermonters. Why not extend Vermont Yankee’s license for an additional 10 years, and in the meantime begin construction on a new nuclear plant? The Vermont legislature has already voted down a similar proposal.

President Obama has promised to make new funds available to support nuclear power, and either new nuclear power plants will be a fiscally viable alternative to energy rate hikes, or we will have to find alternative energy sources to offset the higher prices resulting from Vermont Yankee’s closure.

Higher prices would certainly lead Vermonters to reexamine their energy use, possibly curbing their use and causing them to make more energy-efficient decisions for their households.

Price increases of up to 39 percent, however, pose serious difficulties in a state where many people have already been struggling just to heat their homes in the winter. A small price increase might lead people to reexamine their energy use, but the most affected parties, low-income Vermonters, would still struggle to pay for basic energy needs.

If building a new nuclear plant is not fiscally viable, or politically possible, then Vermont needs to expand hydropower and other forms of alternative energy. At some point we need to move beyond “not in my backyard” and come to terms with an imminent energy crisis.

This legislative vote does not definitively mark the end for Vermont Yankee. If elections in November significantly alter the composition of the Vermont legislature, Vermont Yankee could bring up the license extension again.

As I said, the legislature needs to get creative: extending Vermont Yankee’s license for another 20 years is not acceptable, but simply letting it close in 2012 spells appalling and disastrous rises in energy rates.

Vermonters need to make some tough choices in examining our own energy use and in expanding the use of alternative forms of energy. For now, Vermonters and the College are looking at a gloomy and troubling financial predicament in the next several years.