I Did Not Have Sex with That Woman

Dear God,

Years from now, when people look back on my tenure in this PR department, they may consider my defining moment to be how I react to today's news.

And the news is this: A few Entergy press releases from 2001 and 2002 were found. This was during the time when Entergy was trying to buy Vermont Yankee. Those news releases assured Vermonters that Entergy would be responsible for all costs related to plant decommissioning.

Aug. 15, 2001, announcing Entergy's plan to buy Vermont Yankee: "Entergy will also assume decommissioning liability for the plant and the plant's decommissioning trust fund, which is required by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission."

Feb. 25, 2002: "Entergy will assume all financial and operational risks of increases in operating and fuel costs, decommissioning costs, used fuel costs, nuclear waste disposal costs, costs of any accidents at VY or other nuclear plants in the U.S., costs of premature shutdowns and extended outages."

The July 18, 2002 press release is kind of tricky. It's not one in which Entergy assures Vermonters it will pay. Instead, in it Entergy demands the right to reap at least half the benefit of any overages it pays into the fund. It said, "Entergy believes that it is fundamentally inequitable for it to bear all of the downside decommissioning fund risk without the potential to share in the upside if funding levels or actual decommissioning costs turn out better than expected."

So why is this news? Because now Entergy says that it doesn't even own Vermont Yankee--that its subsidiary, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, does--and so, it claims, Entergy has no liability in the matter. The decommissioning fund is not its problem at all, despite the assurances it gave.

A few people started getting upset about this back in April, when concerns about a shorfall of several hundred million dollars in the decommissioning fund were swelling. At that time, Entergy Nuclear vice president Wanda Curry, in testimony to the House Commerce Committee, said, "The responsibility for decommissioning Vermont Yankee is with its owner… Its owner is Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee. Its owner is not Entergy." [I added the bold.]

Lord, with the newspapers wagging those actual press releases all over the place, some Vermonters are howlingly mad, and some feel that way about me personally right now. But, Lord, I don't think I even wrote those old press releases. Oh, well. I am the one who is going to have to defend them.

Should I quit in disgust (at mendacity) and fear (of what this will do to my reputation in the community)? I am disgusted, Lord, and I am afraid. Or should I imitate Bill Clinton? You remember The Starr Report, right? It quoted Bill Clinton as responding to a question of whether he lied when he told his top aides, with respect to Monica Lewinsky, "there's nothing going on between us."

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement... Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

They didn't call him "Slick Willie" for nothing.

Anyway, the statement I gave to the Associated Press in response to this press release mess has not been perceived as helpful. So let me try a "Slick Willie" in the context of today's situation.

Why did our press releases say "Entergy" when we didn't mean "Entergy?" It depends on what the meaning of the word "Entergy" is. If the--if it--if "Entergy" means there is none, that was a completely true statement... Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of Entergy with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

Oh, hell, God. That's even worse than what I actually said to the Associated Press about we "should have been more precise" and we didn't intend "to convey anything other than the facts...." And without the luxury of plagiary, I fear I will be speechless, literally. There is no precedent that I know of for making light of a shortfall of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Wait a minute. Of course there is precedent. I'll go to Halliburton's web site. Surely there's guidance there.

Anyway, God, it's going to be a tough few weeks around here, and I hope you'll stick with me. Without your guidance, I won't be able to handle everything as well as Bill Clinton handled his grand jury. Anyway, about one thing I can be perfectly clear:

I did not have sex with that woman.

Love,

Fake-Rob