If you read "the newspapers," as Sarah Palin does nearly every day, no doubt you have learned that the United States intelligence community was warned well before Christmas that "a Nigerian" was preparing for a terrorist attack. But the intelligence community did not act on the information received. The result of someone's (or a few people's) decision to "bury" the reported danger was almost catastrophic, and apparently there will be hell to pay when President O'Bama lives up to his promise to hold people accountable.
Perhaps there is a parallel to be drawn between that example of woefully poor decision making and a decision that must be made here in Vermont in 2010.
Entergy Corp. has recently announced that it plans to ask Entergy Louisiana customers to cover a $45 million shortfall in the fund that will pay for the eventual shutdown of the Waterford 3 nuclear plant in Taft, Louisiana.
Vermont Yankee's decommissioning fund has an even bigger shortfall than that of Waterford 3. What do you think, Lord?
- When the Vermont legislature assesses the potential economic impact on Vermonters of renewing Vermont Yankee's license in 2012, will they take into account this intelligence about Entergy sticking Louisiana ratepayers with a bill they never anticipated having to pay?
- How could anyone imagine that the economic benefit to Vermonters of renewing Vermont Yankee's license could outweigh the economic liability, given that the shortfall in Vermont Yankee's decommissioning fund is not $45 million but nearly half of a billion?
- Will there be "hell to pay" for Vermont legislators who turn a blind eye to what is happening right now in Louisiana?
Your speedy answer will be much appreciated, God, by me and by our legislators. And, if you wouldn't mind, could you be speediest about answering question #2? The "how could anyone imagine" part is my biggest concern. It's going to be my job as PR guy to get our legislators to imagine precisely along those lines.
Amen, Lord, and I hope you're keeping warm this week.
Fake-Rob