VERNON — The social, economic and political impact of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant remains a source of bitter debate even when - especially when - people with strong views from either side of the divisive issue forecast what happens when the facility will no longer generate electricity.
As part of their argument to shut the substation, several organizations such as the New England Coalition, Safe and Green Vermont and other antinuclear groups point to conflicting studies and presumptions that minimize the economic impact of the plant's closing to the state and to the region.
In April, Gary Flomenhoft, a renewable-energy scholar who works as a research associate with the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics at the University of Vermont in Burlington, wrote about the economic impact issue in a blog post.
“Lately supporters of Vermont Yankee have brought up the issue of job loss in Vernon to gain sympathy for their cause. They are right. Jobs will be lost, at least eventually after the mess is cleaned up,” Flomenhoft acknowledged.
“The creative destruction of the free enterprise system can be disruptive, no doubt about it,” he continued. “It's evolutionary; new organisms replace old ones which go extinct. Whenever an obsolete technology is replaced there are massive job losses. When cars replaced horses think of all the blacksmiths, saddle-makers, buggy whip makers, horse-trainers, etc. that went out of business.
“Did we say ban cars and bring back horses? Of course not, progress is progress,” Flomenhoft wrote.
“Distributed renewable energy is the new industry that is replacing centralized power plants, especially nuclear and fossil fuels,” he continued. “Jobs will be lost, but more will be gained. For one thing, nuclear power is more capital intensive than renewable energy. More labor is employed by renewables than by centralized power plants per Megawatt-hour.”
In 2009, the Vermont Public Interest Research and Education Fund (VPIREF) issued a report, “Repowering Vermont,” which asserts that “local renewable energy will cost Vermonters less, put more Vermonters to work, and provide more support for our local tax base.”
Combining energy efficiency and renewable energy development (with wind, biomass, solar power, hydroelectric and farm/landfill methane projects) “could deliver 1.5 times as much power as Vermont Yankee at 6.9 cents per killowatt hour,” VPIREF projected.
There is still uncertainty about what rate VY's power will be sold at after its current contracts with Vermont utility companies expire in 2012.
VPIREF Clean Energy Program director James Moore said an offer was made through the now-defunct Entergy spinoff company, Enexus, of 6.1 cents per kilowatt hour.
“Right now, there is no offer, let alone a deal,” Moore said. He added that since VY is an old plant and, according to Entergy's quarterly financial reports, the least profitable of its fleet, the company will likely need to charge higher rates to make a profit.
Undergirding the views of the plant's opponents is the presumption of the inherent dangers of nuclear power and the potential for devastation of the area, resulting in a scenario for which job loss would be the least of the region's worries.
Both Flomenhoft's and VPIREF's scenarios presume an overall improved economic health statewide, a different issue from the short- and long-term effects of offsetting the disruption in the county's economy.
As to Windham County's economic vulnerability, Flomenhoft offers little sympathy.
“The gains in the rest of the state would far outweigh the losses in Vernon,” he wrote. “Sorry, Vernon, but join the 21st century. Free enterprise is competitive. You bet on a loser.”