 |
|
Report from Drew Hudson on the DPS Public Engagement Hearing 10/3/2007 “This is a really important night for the state,” said DPS Commissioner David O’Brien in his opening remarks, and I think he was really right. “We’ve put a lot of work into this evening and the experience you’re about to have because we think that the thoughts and opinions of real Vermonters is really important.” After opening remarks from the commissioner and some announcements, we got down to business by collecting some basic demographics from the voting attendees. I didn’t type fast enough to get all the info down, but a couple things stood out to me:
None of this indicated anything in particular about how people would vote. So we enter the presentation phase with me still unsure how the polling will go later on. It will also be interesting to see how these demographic trends shift in the other forums. Next on the agenda was a presentation by Dave Lamont of the DPS on our current energy supply, how the grid works, and some of the decision making lenses regulators, utilities and Vermonters can use to evaluate the costs and benefits of different energy sources. Overall the data is fair, but a couple assumptions glare out at me (get a look at the full documetnation here):
All of that said, the presentation does a great job of laying out to Vermonters the core problem: there’s no free rides to our energy future. Every power source we could use has costs and benefits. There are tradeoffs no matter which way we go. And we have to choose something, and choose it soon. With contract and licenses for 70% of our power ending in the next 6 years, there is no option to do nothing. After the presentation everyone breaks into small groups to discuss and debate the presentation, and come up with a few questions to ask the panel of experts. It was too noisy for me to hear what any one group was discussing accurately, so I went into the hall to jot some notes for this post.
This is concerning news to anyone who still trusts the DPS to oversee the safety and reliability of a nuclear reactor that’s experienced two cataclysmic accidents in the last few months. It also adds fuel to our concerns that DPS and other stat-level regulators will follow the lead of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) so far in rubber-stamping continued use of this dangerous facility. There is also a Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel (VSNAP) meeting tonight that we'll be attending. We'll see if anything happens there to reasure those of us who want state watchdogs to vigorously investigate the safety of our nuclear plant. After 50 minutes of discussion, the panel discussion begins: I had concerns about the panel because all the experts are current or former DPS staff, or work for a utility. In other words, a good representation of the energy status-qou. As with the presentation, however, it comes out OK. Rich Sedano of the Regulatory Assistance Project in particular is compelling and honest in his vision of a more distributed and small energy supply for Vermont. And while none of the presenters are willing to totally embrace what they describe as the ‘risk’ of renewable energy, they are also open to other opinions from the crowd and clearly solicitous of input. The voters are great too: most of the questions boil down to pushing the experts to more clearly or completely delineate the costs of electricity generation not represented in the price we pay for kWh: how do we account for the cost of storing nuclear waste for millions of years? How do you account for kids that get asthma from breathing polluted air? It’s clear that the voters share my discomfort with the narrow ‘cost-benefit’ calculation of energy presented here. And although the panel does not offer much in the way of direction, it’s reassuring to see people seeking ways to express their values in this process. After the panel one of the attendees, Anne Stevens of Greensboro, approaches me clearly frustrated with the process. “They’re cooking the books!” she explains. “Nuclear power gets all these subsidies and renewables get a tiny fraction.” I commiserate, but encourage her to be hopeful: in a few minutes Anne and her peers get to vote on where our power should come from. The data is imperfect because the process that created it was political – with utilities and Entergy pushing one view and VPIRG pushing another and no clear answers. But tonight the money and power and insider access of the big players means nothing, because Anne is on to their schemes and she gets to vote for whatever she wants, not whatever they offer. And with that we arrive at the voting. This is the big show, the moment we’ve been waiting for: here’s what happened on a couple of key questions:
|
While there I overheard some troubling conversation between DPS staff, including the Commissioner himself, and Entergy employees. I won't misrepresent their views by publishing imperfectly remember quotes here, but my strong impression was that DPS staff are more concerned about helping Entergy’s PR team than ensuring that thorough and independent inspections are done at the plant.