Skip to main content

State Senate Approves Vermont Yankee Tax

By Eric McErlain
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.
Labels:

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.
May 10, 2007 at 4:50 PM
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
May 11, 2007 at 5:54 PM
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.
May 14, 2007 at 9:30 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more