Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: All right. Welcome everybody. We are live and it is Tuesday, February 17. This is the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee and we are here today to receive the annual report of the Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel. So we're going to go around the room and introduce ourselves and then we will ask anyone who's attending in the room to introduce themselves and then we'll turn it over to our witnesses to introduce yourselves. So I'm representative Kathleen James from the Bennington Ford District, Manchester.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And I have Scott Campbell from Saint John's Berry.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor, Bennington. Michael Southworth, Melanonia two. Christopher Howland, Rutland Ford.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Dara Torre, Washington two. Laura Sibilia, Windham two. And, madam chair, I'll disclose before we start. I sit on the nuclear decommissioning citizens advisory panel. Great.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: Thank you for that disclosure. In the room.

[Dana Lee Perry (The Crasson Group)]: Dana Lee Perry from the Crasson Group.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: Great. And for the record, if you guys could introduce yourselves and then offer us your testimony in whatever order you desire.

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Well, I'll start Jim and Tony. My name is Carrick Johnson. I'm commissioner of the Vermont Department of Public Service. Okay. Okay.

[Tony Lushinski (Vermont State Nuclear Engineer, Department of Public Service)]: I can go next. I'm Tony Lushinski. I'm the Vermont State Nuclear Engineer. I work for Commissioner Johnson in the Public Service

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Department. Frank?

[Jim Pinkerton (Chair, Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel; Vernon Selectboard Member)]: Good afternoon. I'm Jim Pinkerton. I'm chair of the Indycap. My Internet seems to be a bit bouncy. I hope you can hear me okay. I also serve on the Vernon Select board. I also serve at Windham Regional Commission where I chair the planning and resource committee, and I'm on their executive committee among other things that I volunteer for.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: All right. Thank you so much. And I guess over to you, Commissioner Johnson.

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yes, thank you. Honestly, madam chair, this is the report is kind of the report, just to lay some plate tectonics down. It's a departmental responsibility to produce the report. And but what we do is we develop the draft, share it with the panel, and then we get their feedback, and we we have late breaking news. We did identify one small, not Scribner's area, but once I think we got a name wrong, which should be Bella Watson, not Anne Watson. It was from senator Welch's team that did our president. It just wasn't entirely clear. But aside from that little error, we've had feedback from the panel. So and I should also say, thank you for accommodating our schedule. We had a bit of our kerfuffle in getting out. The primary one was me, not as Tony pointed out. I had not done my homework in time, so we had to we had to move that around. So I appreciate the committees willing to accommodate our schedule. Jim and, Tony and I met to discuss this this conversation. Jim was effectively was, elected as chair of Endicab, and that's all referred to that panel, at the 2025. So I was serving as chair. That's what the statute calls for. If absent someone volunteering or running for, that position, it falls to the commissioner to serve that role. Owen ran. I served in the role. The report that you have documents the activities, repeats the charter, goes through exactly what essentially, the minutes of the meeting and kinda what's next. Jim and Tony and I have discussed this. So I it's, madam chair. I give Jim an opportunity to weigh in on his role, what he has seen as a member because Jim was a member throughout, and then answer any questions. But there really isn't, I would say, at bottom, this is largely a good news story. This is a company, North Star, that is undertaking the deep construction of the facility, and it's on time and on budget. That's a good story.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: Great. You're gonna turn it over to Jim, you said. So, Jim, just, we have until two or even 02:15. I mean, we're not in a huge rush. By two, I'll be probably looking at my watch. But I just wanted to, I guess, orient you to the fact that this is the first testimony this committee has taken on Yankee and on the decommissioning panel period. We always like to start at ground one.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Could be ground zero. It's

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: ground zero. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: Always like to start at the beginning. So feel free to, you know, provide background and you know? So over to you.

[Jim Pinkerton (Chair, Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel; Vernon Selectboard Member)]: Whatever background you would request, I was wondering whether or not the committee had any specific questions regarding the annual report.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: It's just been posted to our committee and I'm not sure how much time folks have had to spend with it. So you can walk us through the highlights. That would be a really great use of our time.

[Jim Pinkerton (Chair, Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel; Vernon Selectboard Member)]: I'm going to let Tony take that. Tony is the one that prepared the report. Remember, was a I was a new member on the committee last year and the the last meeting of the year, the last agenda item, I took over chair of the committee. I think Tony would be better at dealing with that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: Sounds good.

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Well, if I may, Tony, Madam Chair, for the record, Commissioner Carrick Johnson. Thank you. A little bit more orange. Here's some opening comments, I guess, let's say for orientation on this issue. The report that you'll see in our reading, think, in working with Tony, Tony did excellent work on this, was really to try and capture not just the to make it not just a dry document, just minutes. You'll get a flavor. You'll get a sense, I think, of the tone of the conversation. I've actually learned quite a bit. There is an incredible amount of work that's represented by, that's contained within this report and reflects input from certainly North Star, the company doing the decommissioning, but also the agency of natural resources, other regular I'm trying to think of the other regulatory bodies that we've had. And these were and this is an incredibly active panel. Lots of questions. I I think it was usually scheduled from six or 06:30 to eight. I don't think we ever ended early, and it was a very active and engaged group. And I think what and and Jim can can weigh on this. What I sought to do in my role as chair was to create you know, allow for open inquiry and let the conversation goes where it goes. And we had a lot of open inquiry. So for instance, much discussion about dust during deconstruction and the radiation levels associated with that. How was that? What are you doing for, dust was a big deal for a time. As these issues, as different things were being deconstructed, that gave rise to different issues. We would reach out to different elements of state government, or people, excuse me, I should say, responsible for, monitoring, various aspects. So tritium and water, air, as I said, with regards to dust. There's all kinds of, trying to think if there's any other major pieces of it. Fundamentally, though, every single step, both in terms of the process of deconstruction, how many train loads, how many trucks were had gone since when last we met, what was the route that they actually took, exactly what does that portend for any kind of exposure, water or air. In addition, we had quite a presentation on if in fact, the casts, were to be moved, what would be the route for that transportation, which was a huge effort? What would be the route for that transportation? What would be the route for delivering those casts that are currently there on-site to somewhere else, wherever that may be? I think they, Tony may check me on this, but they might've even used the site that was under consideration for a number of years that ultimately so far has not been successful. That was an issue that came up. There's a whole discussion on that. I should also talk about lots of discussion and questions on the money, exact status of the decommissioning fund. What is the work left to do? Do we have sufficient funds to be able to handle all the work that we how's that working? And it's a very healthy situation that this deconstruction of initiative finds at. So, honestly, lots of questions, but thankfully, given other aspects in my role currently now, in this instance, the financial wherewithal is eminently there to be able to complete the job and complete the job correct. So you'll see some of that, what's happening with exposure, what's happening in the commute, What's happening with the money? All those things, I think, are all green lights, which, and I will also say that the North Star people themselves, their team, they're there every single every meeting, incredibly responsive. They go the extra mile to make sure they get the information. Questions will come up. Someone will ask at one meeting. We make sure, and they'll say, okay. It might not be strictly speaking within the scope of what is ostensibly to be considered by Endicap, North Star has been incredibly, I would think, gracious in understanding the need and seeing the benefit of answering every single question they can. I don't think, Tony, that we've had there's also every single meeting, there's at least two opportunities for public comment. And these are well publicized meetings, and we actually have, okay, any questions so far? And I two or three times there has been there has been questions, and actually one of the main people who ask the most questions is now a member of Endicaff, which is great. So I thought I'd give you a lay a little flavor. I think that in terms of the comportment of the panel, the interaction, a lot of these folks have been on for a while, they know each other. So there's, I would say, it's a good functioning body. Secondly, in terms of subject matter, as I said, they're incredibly knowledgeable, and in terms of money I've already talked about. The one thing I didn't touch, which I should touch upon, is there is an intersection between the focus of this panel, whose job it is to oversee the deconstruction, and then currently ostensibly to disband, is also there's been an intersection with some of the national issues that's been going on, like what happens what is the progress, Andy, with regards to establishing a federal repository consisting with statutory responsibility? So there's been a voice and a sharing on this group with what's going on nationally. Why don't I stop there? I hope that's helpful.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: Yeah, just to set the table a little bit for those of us who are just tuning in. Vermont Yankee was built in and operated for some number of years providing base load power to the grid. And then it was decommissioned in 2014. And at that time I assume that was when the citizens advisory panel was set up to provide public input as the decommissioning or deconstruction process unfolded. That's my recollection. And it sounds to me like the contracting, some kind of contracting company was hired that North Star that I presume specializes in taking down

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Deconstructing nuclear facilities. That's their specialty.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: And so I'm seeing here, you guys have some photos here, we see what it looked like in 2021 and what it looks like today. It looks like we're down below ground level. And so again, I will turn it over to you to walk us through the highlights of the report, but it's my understanding that what's currently there today is this sort of remaining foundation that we see and then some casks of spent fuel that have nowhere to go. Right? Because no one will take them.

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Here's what I'm gonna do now that I and I apologize. I could've I wasn't sure. Honestly, I wasn't didn't know that this was ground zero, so this this is helpful.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: When I say we haven't taken testimony before, I mean, we have not Okay.

[Tony Lushinski (Vermont State Nuclear Engineer, Department of Public Service)]: Testimony before. What I'm

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: going what I'm going to do is you'll see it written, but there's an excellent PowerPoint I'll share with Alex that walks through that, says that kinda gives that kinda grounding, and it's it's only because we put some work into this. It's, eight or 10 slides. Think that'd be really helpful. Straightforward. So I'll make sure that we do that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: We'll get that posted.

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: And then I think your questions are a perfect lead in for Tony because Tony has been exacting on his work. I sought to ensure this particular report under my watch was ex accessible and told the story of what's going on. So, I mean, it may seem a small thing, but I don't think it is. It's never had pictures before. It's never been a little bit more clear. Exactly. Here's all other people. I think it had that. But, really, the narrative so you can kinda see how it evolved over the course of the year. But but Tony is the one to come.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: Okay, Tony.

[Tony Lushinski (Vermont State Nuclear Engineer, Department of Public Service)]: Okay, well, good afternoon, everyone. Once again, I'm Tony Lushinski. I'm the Vermont state nuclear engineer, and I've been in this position since June 2014. So I was hired in just a few months before Vermont Yankee shut down in December 2014. And I've been watching what has been going on at sites since then. So the report this year really discusses on the highlights that have occurred during the 2025 calendar year. So just very briefly, Vermont Yankee shut down 12/29/2014. By 2015, all of the nuclear fuel that had been in the reactor core was moved to what was called the spent fuel pool. And there was quite a bit of fuel stored there. At that time, there was already some fuel stored in approximately 13 spent fuel, what are called dry cask storage canisters. They're basically air cooled concrete and steel canisters that in this case hold up to 68 fuel assemblies. Vermont Yankee had over, I'm forgetting the exact number, I want to say 3,880 fuel assemblies. That's what's coming to mind, but I will check that number and I'll get a more correct number to you if not accurate. But those fuel assemblies, the majority of them cooled down in the spent fuel pool for a few years. And in June 2017, there was a campaign to begin moving all of the spent fuel into dry cask storage systems. And by August 2018, the last of Vermont Yankee spent fuel, what Department of Energy is now calling used fuel, was moved to the dry cask storage pad. And since that time, all of the spent fuel has stored on two concrete pads located just north of where the reactor building had been standing. So with that, there are currently 68 spent fuel storage canisters holding all of that fuel. And one, what is called a greater than class C waste container. This container holds what were highly irradiated components of the Vermont Yankee reactor vessel that are, they're a little more contaminated and a little more radiated than what is allowed for normal radioactive waste shipments. So much like spent nuclear fuel, they don't have a place to go right now. So that is being stored on-site in a canister that is very similar to the spent fuel canisters. So moving on from that in January 2019, a sale to North Star nuclear decommissioning company was fully executed. And the active decommissioning of the plant commenced literally within a day of that final closure. And since that time, the plant has progressively been torn down, radioactively contaminated material has been loaded up and shipped to the Texas compact low level waste disposal facility in Andrews County, Texas. There is also materials that have been shipped to hazardous waste materials. I mean, there were some materials in the plant that were not radioactively contaminated, but still contained hazardous materials such as asbestos and other things that simply cannot be disposed of in a normal landfill. So there was some shipments to hazmat facilities in addition to the Texas compact facility in Andrews, Texas. And work has progressed through 2023. Most of the outlying structures associated with power generation at Vermont Yankee were taken down. So that included the cooling towers, the effluent stack and the turbine building among others. And since 2023, really to the 2025, the work has focused on dismantling and ultimately beginning the structural teardown of the reactor building itself. And for the most part, at least the above ground portion of the reactor building now is completely gone. There is, and I checked this this morning, there is still some work going on in the Reactor Building Basement. There are some piping that has been sealed off in the Reactor Building Basement that are being removed and are loaded up and being shipped off to Andrews, Texas, much like most of the other waste material coming from Vermont Yankee. And right now the major issue is clearing the remainder of the scrap and contaminated materials from the Vermont Yankee site. There is still some work to be done out at the Connecticut River. There's still some work to dismantle the remainder of the river intake structure and the river discharge structures. And there is some work that remains to remove below grade piping that had surrounded the reactor and turbine buildings. So this is work that should complete this year, but at this point, the more interest is to do things safely rather than expediently. So that's roughly where we are right now and I'm certainly open to questions.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: I just had one, since we're talking about the site cleanup, could you fill us in a little bit on the PFAS contamination?

[Tony Lushinski (Vermont State Nuclear Engineer, Department of Public Service)]: Okay, I can discuss this briefly, but I will say that PFAS is really in the jurisdiction of PFAS is within Department of Environmental Conservation and Agency of Natural Resources. So there was an expectation of PFAS to be on-site simply because I guess back in the early 1990s, there was a transformer fire and a number of PFAS do show up in former formulas for firefighting foam. So the expectation was that there would be some PFAS on-site from extinguishing that fire. And there's for the past several years, there has been a search for PFAS. There was some discovered in, we received notification on this in September 2025, that was within just a few days prior to the September panel meeting. So I know that raised some issues because it was a very new concern that we had PFAS in much more than any trace level that had been seen at the site at that time. So this is something that is still being explored. I know North Star and they have a hazardous materials contractor named Alien Aldridge that has been conducting investigations on PFAS and they are working closely with Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. So a report was submitted just I believe about six weeks, eight weeks ago tops and Department of Environmental Conservation is in the process of reviewing that. My understanding is that the lead investigator for DEC has returned comments to Haley and Aldridge and they continue to move forward on that. A final determination of what is necessary, how it will be addressed is probably a few months out. My understanding is the turnaround on this could be one to three months.

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I would just say, Tony

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: Sorry, go ahead.

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I would just say that was the subject of extensive conversation and debate and presentation from DEC and, robust questioning from members of the panel. It was it was So I think you would find Thank you. Bless you. Excuse me. Think Tony did an excellent job of laying out where that exactly fits, I guess I wanted to say didn't we have I honestly don't remember her name, but did a presentation, and there was quite a bit of back and forth on exactly the state of the science, where exactly they think it might have come from, how would they track it. There was to tell you the truth, it reminded me a lot of a legislative, testimony. Like, one one of the madam chair's kinda here. But the resolution is that, Tommy. I guess my point is how does end cap operate and what was it thoroughly considered and engaged on? With regards to PFAS, yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: Thank you.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Sure. Question.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: Oh, yeah. Rep Campbell. Sorry.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So I'm interested in the shipments of Sounds like the low level waste is being sent to Texas and the spent fuel is stored on-site because there's nowhere to send them. And I I was scanning through the report, and I I looked I wonder if I saw if there was any any transport of waste to the to the site.

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: No. There's not?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: No. No. Nothing. The only waste that's there is waste that was generated by the. Correct?

[Tony Lushinski (Vermont State Nuclear Engineer, Department of Public Service)]: That's correct.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes. And, of course, we don't have any idea whether or when or if, there will be a place to send the dry within the dry cats now. So that's that's we're we're kinda stuck. Right?

[Tony Lushinski (Vermont State Nuclear Engineer, Department of Public Service)]: Yes. At this point, this is a national issue. And in addition to my duties in the Public Service Department, I am the governor's appointee to what is called the National Transportation Stakeholders Forum, which is the Department of Energy consulting with other federal agencies, state governments and recognized tribal governments. And the bulk of what the Transportation Forum does is even though there is not a repository designated, the situation that we're in is that currently federal law says the only place that a nuclear spent nuclear fuel repository can be constructed is at Yucca Mountain out in Nevada. The thing is though that Yucca Mountain has been determined essentially to be an unworkable solution at this point, more politically than technically. But nonetheless, there is a standstill with that. Regardless of that, Department of Energy is still obligated to consult with the states on transportation planning. So the transportation stakeholders forum discusses well, what would we need to do to move spent fuel from these multiple sites around the country since we do not have a facility designated as yet. The planning, assumes that the disposal facility is at the geographic center of The United States or what is called GCUS for short. The reason that was chosen is that if you plan to move from all of these sites to the geographic center of The United States, you can then work that in reverse and move your fuel virtually anywhere contiguous in 48 states for permanent disposal if and when a permanent repository opens.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And I think that, sorry, what I'm saying was, I think you mentioned the railroad's commissioner or you tried to mention about getting material from where it's stored to, I guess, to a railroad siding. That part of it, I suppose, can be planned out. How do you get it to someplace where it can be transported from?

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: You you're exactly right, representative Campbell, and that was the subject of a lot of focus. Exactly the okay. Who what kind of trucks I mean, mind numbing detail with regards to exactly the route, exactly the vehicles, exactly on what kind of train, what was the capacity of the train, what kind of specific cushioning technologies used on the specific train cars, where would be the switch stage. It was incredibly detailed. The other thing I I would just say, I think it's for the committee to bring it right up to today, is that there is a DOE initiative right now. And I think, Tony, it's called the nuclear innovation nuclear innovation campus. There might be a couple of other words, but effectively seeking to say, here's federal money, and if you're willing to do the full panoply of nuclear from construction site to processing to generation of electricity and processing of fuel of used rods, apply. You can't cherry pick one of that energy management chain for a nuclear material. You have to buy in all of it. They've had some interest in in that. That continues apace exactly where where that stands. We'll see what happens with it. I mean but there are some communities who have who have stepped up.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Uh-huh. So I have two other questions, and then we'll come down. One one is, when this site is cleaned up, how what does that mean? What can it be used for?

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Another really good question. As as I recall, it's about a 141 acres of, you know, putting the cast aside plus the buffer zone around the cast. What are we talking about this site? And, my understanding, it's it's approximately a 141 acres, and it it should also be stated right at the outset. And thanks to representative Sibilia who may be aware of that. There's an existing, lease option or lease in place for an option to develop that's owned by a company called Power Transitions who had put that agreement into Power Transitions, capital p, capital t, no space between power and transitions. And, I had actually met with them in my previous career stop in December '23, but they had a different plan there. Regardless, they have an agreement in place right now that they're two years into a seven year agreement, and it has an automatic seven year renewal. Power transitions, they're kind of MO there. And and by all means, I would be happy to connect, and and you can hear from them if you'd like, madam chair. Their MO is to redevelop properties consistent with community wishes. That's what they do. So they've done old coal plants and converted them into other types of technology, I think gas.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So they don't have a particular plant for this site?

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: No. And once I found out about it, well, candidly, I was a bit frustrated that I was finding out about this, so it seems to me kind of late in the game, but apparently it had been signed like sixteen months or so prior to my arrival, so it was in place. And so we got that squared away, then I met with the team, and then I I had an event where I was presenting in Houston, so I got to meet them in person, to make sure that to impress upon them the the criticality of how we do business in Vermont. It's a very collaborative approach. You're gonna need and the state of Vermont has a right of first refusal that's vested in the public service department over what happens if that property is sold. It hasn't been sold, been leased. But, you know, I was doing what I thought we we should be doing, which was you understand that, you're not being too clever by half here. Right? Are we gonna have to, like, have that kind of game? And no. And thus far, very honorable comportment with regards to these people. We brainstormed, connected them with some other regulators, for instance, also in New England, because there's, like, New England interest, it's right across the board. So some Massachusetts regulators, so they could say, look, these are the people that have effectively control over that site right now. You should be aware of who they are and need the tea. So I look upon, I think, and we're in the process, we've exchanged kind of notions, and now we have a draft letter of intent that would kinda circumscribe what's the relationship between power transitions and the public service department. The way I view it is, relatively speaking, an arm's length will come up, or I'll connect them because of the nature of how I am conducting my job. I meet folks who are doing some type of sometimes fusion, for instance, or, small modular reactors or geothermal, something that takes advantage of the existing infrastructure there and connect them with power transitions just to let them do their vetting process as a possibility. In turn, where they have ideas or think people are coming in, they're gonna make the department aware. The idea, even as we, you know, this is the beauty of having Jim, and I think Madam Chair and committee, I would say that's the nice cross fertilization of this is given Jim's multiple hats within the local community as well as his role on Endicap, there's a nice there's nice synergy that happens with there. Jim and the people in Burnham have already met power transitions at least once, if if not more. I'm the one that was late to the party, quite honestly, on that, but now we're engaged. So my hope is we'll have a signed letter of intent starting with the department and power transitions. Hopefully, we'll see a burn in, you know, and as parties as it makes sense to see what happens, we'll see. And I've talked to Velco about the capacity there. I would I would say the from the department's point of view, the best out what might we're seeking to try and find the best outcome, that best utilizes these assets we have in place, which according to Velco was about you could you could probably have, a 600 megawatt load and maybe 800 megawatts of export capacity for energy to understand, okay, what fits here? What would what would make sense in further learning and in harmony with what the local community wants to do, what are they looking in the Vernon? What do they see as the possibility of what's an appropriate use going forward? So there's assets there. There's existing electric infrastructure that Vermont ratepayers as well as New England ratepayers help pay for. I think that's that and other assets that are there would be especially at this time when we're on really are looking to have a go from a summer peaking system in New England to a winter peaking. We already have we've talked about this committee, the attacks on offshore wind, the attacks on Canadian energy as it were. Where are we gonna get if we're gonna continue to decarbonize, where are we gonna get our electrons from? So this is one site that has real usable resources that we'd like to leverage to benefit the community, Vermont's ratepayers, as well as the region's ratepayers. So that's what I would say. Just we don't wanna have control of it, but we we have what we have in our back pocket statutorily.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Oh, that was fascinating. Thank you. Sure. And and my last question is just how much how much what is the budget for cleaning this place up? Round numbers.

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Do you remember, Tony, please? Numbers.

[Tony Lushinski (Vermont State Nuclear Engineer, Department of Public Service)]: I I I would I would have to defer to the

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: the planning department on that.

[Tony Lushinski (Vermont State Nuclear Engineer, Department of Public Service)]: I I I focus on the technical and not the financials. Thank

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: you. We'll get that to

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: you. You.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: I had a quick question on Power Transitions before we answer So Rutland's Power Transitions is a I just want to make sure I understand. So they're a tech space company that takes

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: E development. Say that in chair.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: Yeah. Right.

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Oh, I'm

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: sorry. Okay. Yeah. So they're Texas based company that takes Yeah.

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I apologize. I think Tex Tex based. Sorry. D e x e s. I've been e

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: a s e d. They're a Texas based company that takes aging decommissioned old energy infrastructure and transitions it to some kind of new energy infrastructure. They don't go outside that box. It's energy to energy.

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I I wouldn't say it's that explicitly narrow of a focus, and, that is within their portfolio of projects that probably constitutes like their main like, what are they known for?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: Well, okay. You're right. I'm seeing yeah. AI and digital infrastructure.

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. Everyone has to As well. Rigor. Interesting.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: Okay. So AI, digital infrastructure, energy, and if they're only leasing the space, how do they how do they make their money? Brokering a deal or bringing in a new user?

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Great question. And effectively, yeah. Like, that that could be typically, what they do is they have contacts within the industry, and who's interested there's attributes to this site. It's like a real estate. And so Yeah. We have here for sewer and water. We have here for electrical infrastructure. I mean, bluntly, is some access to cooling even as it's being deconstructed. There's railroad siding. And here's where it is in New England. Great like I said, great transmission infrastructure there. Who's interested in working to develop this site? They have because of their portfolio projects and the like, they they get interest, and then they work with them. Well, we could do this. They they may agree on their dime. Well, we'll do this, and we'll take care of these things. And that can the responsibilities in terms of developing or you can run the gamut. They could say, we'll work with local stakeholders. We'll get the permits. For instance, you pay for any of the materials or at all construction we hand off, and then it's a turnkey where you pay for everything there. They could say, we'll build a spec building, and we'll see if that makes sense. We'll incur the cost to get the permits to actually affect the build, and then you finish the building and the like. So it they have the site. They have the network of industries to work with to see who is interested in doing something at this site, and they make their money, I would say, depending on how much work, how much time they invest to make the site acceptable for transfer to some other developer. Then they cash out. So it it's up to them it's up to them to decide, no. We're gonna get in this. We're actually gonna run the generation for the first year, and then we'll sell it to a utility or some other, energy operator. So they've had very different approaches. They have different funding now because so they this this space has evolved so fast, especially now with what's happening with data centers and the like. But but they're pretty creative being a lot of former military and some sharp sharp people. And, I mean, I'll say on the record, they got got good vibe from them. I mean, it wasn't straightforward. I did some checking in Kansas. They were good on their word. Great to understand about the for public engagement tours. More forms of communication with more stakeholders is a better way to get to yes, which you know, some people just don't understand that, and they fail in Vermont. That's just the way it is, so I try to impress upon them. Here's what you would what little did you know or maybe you didn't know. Here's where you're at, and here's the kind of things that you are gonna be required, whatever whatever is proposed for there.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: Okay. Rev Morrow?

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Is the spent fuel there suitable to be used as

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: question about it.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Fuel for an SMR, if if that was a an opt in?

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Tony, do you know?

[Tony Lushinski (Vermont State Nuclear Engineer, Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. The answer to that is yes and no. There are a number of small modular reactor designs. And at my last count, there's something like 85 different design proposals for SMRs right now. And some of them would use nuclear fuel that has been previously burned in a pressurized water reactor or a boiling water reactor. But not all SMRs are set up that way. Some are using design concepts that were proposed at the beginning of the Atoms for Peace program in the late 1950s and early 1960s, but at that time were deemed untenable, but the technology has improved since then.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: So hypothetically, if we were able to use that fuel for an SMR, Who who owns the fuel? Who would make the money by selling it to an SMR? Does the state recruit money off of that sale? Or

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Tony, correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think the state I think that's all federally jurisdictional, but is that your understanding?

[Tony Lushinski (Vermont State Nuclear Engineer, Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. Currently, when North Star Nuclear Decommissioning Company purchased Vermont Yankee, they purchased everything. They purchased the license and they purchased ownership of the spent nuclear fuel on-site. So where the federal government comes in on this is that the federal government has the commitment to provide disposal of that fuel. Eventually the fuel is going to go back to the federal government. But right now, North Star owns that fuel.

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. But Tony, I think of representing Morrow that the disposition that we want to do this. I don't imagine you'd be able to do that without federal approval and sign off. Correct. Yes.

[Jim Pinkerton (Chair, Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel; Vernon Selectboard Member)]: Madam Chair?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: Yes, sir.

[Jim Pinkerton (Chair, Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel; Vernon Selectboard Member)]: If you don't mind, I'd like to take it back a step for a previous question. Vernon's in the town of Vernon's involvement in the process of what's going to happen with the plan has been very, very extensive. We, we've commissioned a report on what the town feels is appropriate use for that facility, accomplished by Stephens and Associates. Antioch University has come by and take a look at the site and see what could possibly be done with it and what the community feels needs to be done with it. And the town plan has been modified twice in the past fifteen years to regard that. If you're if you're anywhere near the Vernon Town plan, the entire page 12 and page 13 just addresses some ideas that we have for that. The power transitions company contacted us about two years ago, and we've had three meetings with them to date. Their original proposal involved, a battery storage facility and a solar array to feed it. They've backed off with a solar array and the battery storage facility isn't something that we highly recommend for the for the site. We'd like to see Vermont Yankee developed into a site where there's better opportunity for more jobs and more income to tell you the truth for the town. But the chances of that gonna happen are are pretty low. One of the things the town did is we looked seriously at successes other people had with decommissioned nuclear sites. And in The United States, the count right now, and correct me if I'm wrong with my numbers on this, Tony, it's zero. Right?

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Well, yeah, go continue

[Jim Pinkerton (Chair, Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel; Vernon Selectboard Member)]: to In the do world, it's basically zero. So it's quite a challenge and it's really important to realize that Vermont Yankee, in the case, Star's facility, owned by North Star. The town doesn't own that property. But anything that's done with that property, we will get intervener status in that process, and we'll be talking to ANR and Public Utilities Commission regarding how the town feels about it. And and we've done quite a bit of work in preparing for this, and and we're we're looking forward to the process going on. Worthy of note, additionally is we're really impressed with North Star's work. We watch them very, very closely. And, where they're they're very, very conscious about a radioactive hazardous waste there, their response to non radioactive hazards has been worthy of note. They've been quite good on that. They discovered the PFAS that was running around there and they've done a bunch of work closely with the Agency of Natural Resources and Alan Aldrich, the contractor they hired to evaluate the chemist to hire that. So the two things are, one, the municipality is really, really involved in that process, what's going on there, and we're quite happy with the way the process is going to date. We have basically a 140 acres of riverfront property that just would make a fine business absent the, spent fuel air storage area. And we're looking forward to what's gonna happen in the next year or so. I'm really happy to be involved with the NDCAP at this level and more than willing to keep your committee up to date on anything that transpires there that looks even remotely interesting.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: Thanks. I just had a few questions. Want to make sure I understood a couple of things. So the town of Vernon was not involved in the long term lease, right? That was a business deal signed between North Star and Power Transitions.

[Jim Pinkerton (Chair, Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel; Vernon Selectboard Member)]: Came to us as a complete surprise.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: And anything, and this may be for Commissioner Johnson, related to the redevelopment of that site, would that be active 50 or would that be a CPG? Or does it depend? Act

[Jim Pinkerton (Chair, Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel; Vernon Selectboard Member)]: two fifty.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: I was just curious about the intervener status that the town would be afforded.

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Jim, what did you say about act two fifty and and and section two forty eight?

[Jim Pinkerton (Chair, Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel; Vernon Selectboard Member)]: That's the that's where we would intervene.

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: If if they were seeking to build a generator, they'll have to get a certificate of public good.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: So it would be the town intervening at the PUC level in the February process?

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Presumably, if they're if the town would be a statutory party to that proceeding of the CPG. Okay. But

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yep.

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: And and if it's if it's load, conversely, and I honestly, I'm not clear of the existing statutory additional layers of review that remain from regarding this, the site, which there may be. But secondly, if it's low, let's say it's a data center, would go through Act two fifty. And then it still have and then it would be captured through the PUC process because then it would be required, for instance, let's say it's 500 megahertz. It would be required to secure an ability to serve letter from Green Mountain Power. That's in Green Mountain Power service manager. So so Green Mountain Power, we're gonna have to say, yes, we can serve, but we're gonna have to build x, y, and z. That would in turn require a CPG for them to do, and in fact would require that the data center developer pay for those assets that were precipitated by the installation of that facility.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: Yeah. Well, I ask because, I mean, you know, because you've been in here this year, but, you know, one of the issues that our committee is circling around through a bunch of different bills is the ability of citizens in towns to meaningfully engage and have a real impact in the sighting of stuff. And so, you know, that's why I

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: asked. Fair.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: Would the municipality be, you know, hiring attorneys or what does that look like? So it sounds like it depends what the proposed use of the site would be.

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: So let's say it's a general let's say it's a small modular nuclear reactor.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: Let's.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay. First first

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: Let's discuss. Next decade.

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. Alright. So they would be required to secure a certificate of public good from the Public Utility Commission. Further, I think even if they had I'm I'm trying to remember now the existing statute would further, I think based on existing reading, require the legislature to also sign off before a final certificate of public good could be issued.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: That is correct.

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. So and then in terms of representation or involvement at the you know better than I the involvement of stakeholders and access at the legislature. At the Public Utility Commission, there would be there's statutory parties that are allowed as a matter, of course, including the town.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: Okay. So that's where the town would be an interviewer. Yeah. Okay.

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: And it and then the department obviously would be a statutory party. I I'm not sure. I don't remember, honestly. It's been a long time since I've had to push on a two forty eight process from this point of view, adjoining landowners and the like. So there would be a set. And then with the Public Utility Commission, Vermont typically has been pretty, I don't mean it pejoratively or anything other than the word I'm gonna take is liberal with regards to who gets in. They typically have a fairly liberal reading, like, we represent this unique point of view. The Department of Public Service has to represent us as a set of rate payers because of x y z. So we should have standing. You should allow us to be part we won't hold things up. We'll be responsive. We'll be a good party. Please let us in. And it's up to the public utility commission beyond the parties that are statutorily accounted for to rule on, and I'm sorry, mission chair McNamara. This is his his world, I'm stepping in. I would just say in my opinion is that the PC would be in the position to have to rule on, are you in or are you not, or no, you're kind of duplicating interest. We think yours is already adequately covered. That would be their

[Jim Pinkerton (Chair, Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel; Vernon Selectboard Member)]: One one add on to that. The municipality would definitely have intervening status, but we would present our intervening to the Windham Regional Commission. And that would that would encompass all the towns in the region, at least in the state of Vermont. And the project review committee, I chair there, we look at all two fifty and all section two forty eight of two fifty requests that go through and we pass on whether or not there is regional significance to that and this gets to the Public Utilities Commission. So it's a process that's quite complicated before it gets to the puck. And I'm intimately involved in both of those processes and looking forward to it, actually. It's gonna be interesting.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: Okay.

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: The one thing I would add, madam chair, is that For the people of Vernon and for the assets in place that ratepayers have paid for, I'm looking for I'm looking for that form of redevelopment that best fits the kind of set of criteria that, one, can be permitted. Two, there has to be some level of local local support or it doesn't make sense to pursue. And thirdly, does in fact deliver great value to Vermont electric ratepayers in the regions. What fits that kind of dose general criteria, we shall see. But my commitment to you on behalf of the department I am grateful to be able to lead right now is that there's no predetermined outcome here. It is simply what is the state of technology and what matches both the community and the state and these kind of assets. It's hope as far as I and this my department are concerned.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: And what happens to the property tax base? I mean I really don't know the answer to this. Something like Yankee Oh great, Rutland has a question. A

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: comment. Yeah, Really about this. And that is that, you know, with the we lost in Windham County 600, you know, $100,000 a year jobs and the economic impact associated with that. Even a number of those folks lived in Vernon, shopped in the region. A number of folks, because that is a tri state region, lived in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. And that has been quite an odyssey there. As a result of this decommissioning, there's been a lot of work that has been done with folks who have developed really expert status in our region, some of whom you'll hear from, and others nationally around nuclear host communities when there are decommissioning. Senator Welch has introduced or had passed.

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Introduced. Introduced. Yeah.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Some legislation around protecting nuclear host communities. So it is lots of lessons here about what happens when something big leaves. And I think the Commissioner's talking about some pretty big infrastructure that will persist even beyond that in terms of access to transmission.

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: More

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: comments or questions? We really appreciate you being here to present the report and to introduce your work to this committee. Always grateful for folks' time. Do we have follow-up questions that you were going to?

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I have two things and an offer.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: Okay.

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Consistent with, I hope, what Chair Pinkerton is is good with, which, by the way, I am so grateful for his leadership on this and his stepping up to do this and especially especially given the other roles that Jim plays. So what I have is presentation on the we have how about

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: Oh, yeah. Your Yep. That would be great.

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: We'll we'll do that and kind of what's going on with the dollars, the financial status. We'll have an update on that. And then thirdly, I would love at least at your discretion, madam chair, introduce you directly. Jim and I would say would introduce you directly to the power transitions team. And I think it would be excuse me. And if you wanted to, I would invite you to consider having a conversation with them directly and see if you get the same vibe, the same sense, at least that as one person, flawed as I am. But it would be interesting just to hear and see. I I wouldn't be grateful for your views and the kinda it'd be it'd great for me. Selfishly, it would be great to see how they how they do in the witness chair in a in a key Vermont legislative committee. How do they how do they comport themselves? How do they I'm serious. That is a big that's part of the you're gonna do business in Vermont and this site for here. You gotta be able to do well here.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: Sounds like a plan, so

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: we we'll be in touch. Okay. Thank you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee)]: Great. Why don't we take a a five minute break? And thank you, commissioner,

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: for being here. Jim. Thank you, Tony. Thank you, Chittenden. You're welcome. Thank you, Jim. You're welcome. Thank you.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Time.

[Commissioner Carrick Johnson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Thanks, Chittenden. Know, it takes, like, three and a half hours.