Part of EnergyBiz® Network »
Utility Management Group
Senior decision-makers come together to connect around strategies and business trends affecting utilities.
Post
US District Court Orders Dakota Access Pipeline Shut and Emptied
It never ceases to astound me that the most basic rules for carrying out such projects can be ignored.
The US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, finding that the US Army Corps of Engineers violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it granted an easement to Energy Transfer’s Dakota Access to construct and operate a segment of that oil pipeline running beneath Lake Oahe, a large reservoir lying behind a dam on the Missouri River and stretching between North and South Dakota.
The court said this was because the Corps failed to produce a full environmental impact statement (EIS) as ordered on 25 March.
We live in an era in which rules, in the form of law, can simply be ignored by companies and government agencies. It is so egregious that I have to wonder if there is much more to this story. Does anyone have additional relevant information?
Thank Mark for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
Discussions
Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Mark, I'm not going to "google" the links for your sources. That's your job.
"Or do you think Entergy should be paid to operate at a loss,..."
If Entergy was operating the plant at a loss, why did it sue the state to keep Vermont Yankee open?
"The groups, which included nuclear scientists, members of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the Washington Legal Foundation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, all agreed that the license extension granted to Vermont Yankee by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be upheld and the plant should be allowed to continue to operate."
U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others join Entergy in lawsuit against Vt
"[Or do you think Entergy should] make the ratepayers keep the dinosaur running?"
Yes I do, because customers are paying higher rates to shut "the dinosaur" down (Vermont now has the fifth most-expensive electricity in the country).
"And no, GHG emissions for power generation did not go up in Vermont in the years since the 2014 shutdown"
And yes, they did. After this article came out:
New England CO2 emissions spike after Vermont Yankee nuclear closure
Green Mountain Power had a problem: how to launder their dirty electricity? First, they outsourced 60% of their generation to Canada and ISO-NE (doesn't count if they emit carbon elsewhere, right?). Then, they took all their hydro/renewable generation and doubled its value, on paper, using the scam of "Renewable Energy Credits":
"Vermont utilities actually count toward their renewable requirements does not always align with the actual sources of power for their customers, due to a renewable credit trade scheme that is perfectly legal.
"Critics say Vermont’s renewable energy standard encourages utilities to buy cheap renewable energy certificates, or RECs, from out of state that wouldn’t meet renewable requirements elsewhere.
"That means companies can tout in-state energy generation projects like wind and solar, sell the renewable “credits” to other states, then purchase cheaper credits from out-of-state projects like hydropower, and still count it toward their renewable targets.
"So although Vermont is leading the way on some renewable indicators, the numbers don’t tell the full story."
Renewable energy trade scheme comes under scrutiny
Look, I´ll try to make this simple.
In the end:
Vermont Yankee was simply superfluous.
I am really not against nukes in some places in 2020. In 2021, not so sure. Perhaps it´s necessary for the time being. Take heart! SMR´s might be the ticket in 2030. I really don´t know.
Take a look at Vermont`s in-state power generation before and after Vermont Yankee closed: 
Take a good look. You can hardly see it. It´s the little smudge on the bottom. Even you have to ask: Why the heck did Vermont ever need a nuke? Well, it seemed like a good business idea 50 years ago. But it did not turn out that way.
Still don´t get it?
Do you see where Vermont is ranked among states and DC in terms of CO2 emissions from electricity? Yes, 51st. The lowest. How about use of electricity? 51st again.
More:
https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/
Table 2. State energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by year, adjusted (1990–2017)
Right in the middle you will see Vermont´s emissions in 2004. The highest between 1990 and 2017. Right in the middle of the nuke era in Vermont. Vermont Yankee closed in December, 2014. Perhaps more notable, try to get a little perspective: The peak in 2004 was about 7 million metric tons of energy related carbon dioxide. California had 384.9 million metric tons of energy related carbon dioxide emissions in 2004.
Little as it was, it was actually more during the nuke era than after. Maybe it was the Entergy bosses driving to work in Hummers.
Still don´t get it?
How about this:
https://www.eia.gov/beta/states/states/vt/overview
What do you see here?
OK, New England´s total emissions have increased. Why? In small part from coal burning in New Hampshire (They love their coal plant. Don´t ask me why. They certainly don´t need it. But that´s NH). And more from transportation. Again, just for some perspective: Vermont in 2017: 5.8 million metric tons of energy related carbon dioxide emissions. California in 2017: 358.6. (Texas was higher.)
Try to keep up here.
Mind you, I never said that there is no place for nukes anywhere in 2020. Quite the contrary. Seabrook has even sold the odd watt to Vermont.
I repeat the point: Vermont Yankee was simply superfluous. Even Entergy finally realized that. It happens. Get over it. And get used to it. It will not be the last.
Look, if your goal was to make things simple, why is your explanation longer than mine?
"Why the heck did Vermont ever need a nuke? Well, it seemed like a good business idea 50 years ago. But it did not turn out that way."
Vermont Yankee was an excellent business decision, generating 2/3 of Vermont's electricity without any carbon emissions in 1973, without coal or gas backup, before the phrase climate change even existed.
"Little as it was, it was actually more during the nuke era than after...still don´t get it?"
Oh, I get it. I get that you're ignoring the 750,000-ton spike in CO2 emissions after VY closed on your graph above. I get that you're trying to confuse electricity generated in Vermont with electricity consumed in Vermont:
Do you see where Vermont is ranked among states and DC in terms of CO2 emissions from electricity? Yes, 51st.
No, that's Vermont's in-state generation, not consumption. Vermont now imports 60% of its electricity, effectively outsourcing 60% of its emissions. And of all of Vermont's renewable consumption, 55% comes from clear-cutting forests and burning the chips.
Welcome to Vermont, where there's unlimited forest to burn!
These are the shell games renewables advocates play to to make dirty electricity look clean, to buy time for fossil fuel interests as they finish destroying the planet.
"Using wood, wood pellets, and charcoal for heating and cooking can replace fossil fuels and may result in lower CO2 emissions overall."
What, by raking leaves and picking up twigs from the ground? I'm not surprised if that's the best you can do,for 150 years Vermonters have exaggerated how close they are to nature. Now if only they left their saws and steam shovels at home...
But instead of casting childish insults (the last refuge of a dying argument), I'll leave it to other readers to judge whether Vermonters today are "maximizing the amount of carbon tied up in trees" - or mining, sawing, and raping their local habitat for every dime they possibly can. It's a grand tradition which predates the American Revolution.
.jpg)
This photo of the Montepelier Statehouse (ca. 1900) shows the care Vermonters' ancestors took in preserving the state's beautiful forests by "maximizing the amount of carbon tied up in trees".
Say Goodbye to Some of Vermont's Most Intact Forests (2019)
"The Green Mountain National Forest wants to clearcut your wild backyard, and it doesn’t want to hear what you think about the environmental impacts.
Without an in-depth, site-specific analysis, or customary public comment opportunity, the Manchester Ranger District of the Green Mountain National Forest is racing to cut 15,000 acres of Vermont’s most intact forests, in an effort it calls the Early Successional Habitat Creation Project.
In simple terms, creating 15,000 acres of “early successional habitat” means a total area one-and-a-half times the size of the city of Burlington, spread across parcels in southern Vermont, will go from forest to stumps.
Approved on June 28 by Forest Supervisor John Sinclair, up to 12,000 acres could be clearcut or receive similar treatment, benefiting relatively few species at the expense of overall biodiversity. Included in the proposed harvest are more than 4,000-acres across eight different Inventoried Roadless Areas, some of which have been proposed for Wilderness designation by Congress within the last 15 years. As planned, the project could jeopardize chances for these Roadless Areas to receive additional protection."
When I click on the link I get this:
"Unavailable due to legal reasons"
In any case, there are 5.9 million acres in Vermont. Please excuse them for having some modest cities! (Forests of Vermont, 2016 - US Forest Service www.fs.fed.us › nrs › pubs › ru_fs119)
Nevertheless:
Behold Vermont!
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/13/travel/vermont-drone-photographs.html?referringSource=articleShare
Get Published - Build a Following
The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.
If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.
Your access to Member Features is limited.
Sign in to Participate