Skip to main content

State Senate Approves Vermont Yankee Tax

The new tax increase on Vermont Yankee that we wrote about earlier this week passed the state senate:
Without a word of debate or even a roll call, the Senate voted Wednesday for a bill designed to encourage energy efficiency and renewable energy, along with an increase in the state's tax on Vermont Yankee to pay for it.

The tax on Vermont Yankee's electric generation would claim $25 million from the nuclear power plant's owner, Entergy Corp., between 2009 and 2012. The House is expected to vote on the bill Friday, when it's likely to face debate.

Though the tax is significantly less than a $37 million profits tax the Senate previously proposed, the company and the governor remain opposed to it.

"This is still a case of a deal not being a deal," Entergy spokesman Brian Cosgrove said. "How do we know what's next?"

David O'Brien, commissioner of the state Department of Public Service, called the tax "irresponsible," and said it would hurt utility companies' negotiations for electric rates with Entergy if the nuclear power plant is relicensed in 2012.

O'Brien wouldn't say whether that means Gov. Jim Douglas would veto the bill, but he said the governor's opposition is strong.
That's good news.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Idiots. Instead of taxing the polluters, they tax the non-polluters. It's like, "you emit no greenhouse gases, so we're going to tax you to make up for those who do." Punish the innocent and let the guilty off scot-free. Yeah, that makes sense.
Anonymous said…
But it does make a kind of sense if you consider taxes as compulsory dividends, or tribute. When legislators and their staffs get tribute from polluters, they find it rewarding to put noneconomic barriers in the way of clean alternatives, i.e. nuclear. If they get some tribute from nuclear, that incentive is reduced.

--- G. R. L. Cowan, former H2 energy fan
Oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes
Anonymous said…
I've always viewed taxes as an economic disincentive. A heavier tax burden negatively impacts the bottom line of a business. Encouragement of business generally takes the form of a tax break. That is why the so-called "renewable" energy industry is heavily subsidized through tax breaks and credits. With Vermont Yankee, you have an example of a non-polluting energy source being penalized through selective taxation. Doesn't really send a good message to those concerned about maintaining a clean environment.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …