STATE OF VERMONT
PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD
Docket No. 7404
Petition of Entergy Nuclear Vermont, LLC, and Entergy
Nuclear Operations, Inc., pursuant to 30 V.S.A. 107, 108,
231, and 232, for Approval of an Indirect Transfer of
Control of Each Company, Consent to Pledge of Assets,
Guarantees and Assignments of Contracts by Entergy
Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, and Amend to the CPG
of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., to Reflect Name
Change, Replacement of $60 Million Guaranty with
$60 Million Letter of Credit and Substitution of $700
Million Support Agreement for Two Inter-Company)
Credit Facilities
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
REPLY BRIEF OF IBEW LOCAL 300
Comes International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 300 (“IBEW”),
by undersigned counsel, and provides its Reply Brief in this docket.
Petitioners Brief presents a perspective which assumes somehow that the restructuring of
Entergy’s ownership of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station operates in the general good
of Vermont both now and in the future. In its brief, IBEW Local 300 proposed conditions in
order to address stated deficiencies.
Petitioners’ refusal – so far - to provide structural protection for the good of Vermont by
placing language in the Operating Agreement and other documents creating this transaction
raises stark concerns about what plans Petitioners may have after the “dust settles.”
IBEW proposed conditions in order for the Petition to be approved and for IBEW to
support the Petition. Otherwise, the petition must be denied. Even the suggestion from
GMP/CVPS (Brief at 6) that the NRC will provide protection regarding reliable operation of the
Station misses the point that the general good of Vermont requires protection in and for
1
Vermont. The NRC does not provide that protection and is geared solely to its realm of very
specific issues. That protection and assurance of reliable operation comes from Vermont and its
Vermont-based workforce. Nothing in Petitioners’ Brief provides any basis for IBEW to change
its position.
IBEW is concerned about the effect of this transaction on Vermont and those of
Vermont who work at and depend on the economy of the plant. The terms seem to allow for the
destruction of the Vermont-based work force. Such a work force is knowledgeable about the
plant and able to provide protection, security and reliable operation by its commitment to
Vermont and to the secure and profitable – for Vermont – running of the plant.
There is a sense in Petitioners’ case that the restructuring will allow a homogenization
and integration of the work force and the operations of the Vermont Yankee Station with those of
the other merchant Stations now owned by Entergy. Such blending of the work force not only
would deprive Vermont of knowledgeable workers serving as “eyes and ears” for reliable
operation of the Station but also provide a “safe” cover to punish a workers adding a “mouth” to
their “eyes and ears” by transferring them to other stations in other states.
Petitioners’ have refused to provide language such as successor language in the
transactional documents to prevent such reduction in the Vermont nature of the Station, its work
force and economy1. This is not in the general good of Vermont.
Instructive of this weakness in Petitioners’ case is reflected in the contradictory
arguments made between their brief and their arguments against the intervention of Locals 369
and 590 of the Utility Workers of America, AFL-CIO (“UWUA”).
1
No amount of language in a collective bargaining agreement provides equivalent long term protection for
the good of Vermont. The protection must be in the transactional documents and the public documents regarding
the transaction. A term or condition to issuance of a Certificate of Public Good provides long term enforcement.
2
Petitioners strenuously opposed UWUA’s intervention on the grounds that the “interests
represented by these Massachusetts unions [the Pilgrim Station, also owned by Entergy]
are outside the scope of this proceeding.” See Petitioners’ Opposition, page 1. Petitioners
adhered to this position even after UWUA pointed out that it has “members that regularly attend
to critical components of the plant.” Supplemental Memorandum of UWUA, page 3.
Petitioners underscored their opposition by stating that the “scope of the proceeding” is
established by statutes2 that “do not encompass the interests represented by the Pilgrim Union.”
Petitioners’ Opposition, page 2 -3.
Petitioners argued: “These statutes clearly indicate that the Board’s responsibility is to
protect the general good of Vermont, not the interests of out –of- state unions or the nuclear
power station where their members are employed.” Opposition at 2. The same arguments would
apply to the interests of out-of-state corporations who want to restructure their ownership of instate power plants and apply practices from out-of-state plants through “central management”.
See Petitioners’ Brief at 2.
Petitioners label the actions of “central management” as applying “best practices.”
However, such is also another way of justifying homogenizing the work force and creating the
capacity and authority to move the work force where it wishes and to remove the good of
Vermont from the management and operation of the plant.
Petitioners’ argue that their complicated structure (such as divided ownership of
EquaGen by Entergy and Enexus) is a good thing because it avoids changing certain matters at
the Vermont and other state levels such as existing collective bargain agreements. See Brief at
15 and 17. On the other hand such issue avoidance may be a bad for Vermont because issues
2
Cf. 30 V.S.A 107(b), 108(a), 231(a) and 232(a)
3
important to the good of Vermont may be side stepped and, then, unilaterally altered several
years following approval by the Board.
Consider the following language in the brief:
A joint-venture structure means that the same employees (approximately 3,500) that
operate the six non-utility units, including the VY Station, will remain employed and
managed by the same company, renamed as EquaGen Nuclear LLC. This structure not
only avoids the need to renegotiate collective-bargaining agreements, but importantly it
ensure that the VY Station will have the benefit of operating within the same 11-unit
fleet, the second largest in the country, with personnel aligned to ensure that best
practices are applied to all of the fleet’s units. Petitioners’ Brief at 15.
How does such a system-wide approach promote the general good of Vermont? And, in
a year or two, when the collective-bargaining agreements (three-year agreements) expire, they
will have to be renegotiated anyway; so what is the benefit to Vermont, really, of the jointventure structure, and of the restructuring without providing actual protection in the organizing
documents of the transaction.
How can the Petition support and promote the general good of Vermont, the legal
standard which must be applied by the Board, when the primary benefits flow to non-Vermont
entities and when Petitioners retain the right to change the deal, against the good of Vermont?
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Brian Lederer
Brian Lederer, Esq.
3003 Van Ness St., NW, Suite W228
Washington, D.C. 20008
(202) 244-1715
August 20, 2008
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this 20th day of August 2008, a copy of the foregoing Initial Brief, was
mailed to all parties of record, as stated in the service list to date and was transmitted also
electronically.
/s/ Brian Lederer
_____________________
Brian Lederer
4