Entergy

===

interesting that it got rolled/defected even tho has huge PR/lawyers; kinda evil?

in biz w/ koch; arkansas pac

e and 3 6? 23

Two steam turbines at the Ninemile Point power plant emit more carbon dioxide than any gas-fired units in America, according to an E&E News review of federal emissions data.

But neither would need to reduce emissions under EPA’s draft rule to limit pollution from power plants.

The discrepancy illustrates the novel approach EPA took in crafting the standard, tailoring requirements to a plant’s fuel type, size and usage. As the agency seeks to green the country’s electric grid, it is balancing the need to deeply slash emissions — and meet the country’s climate targets — with ensuring it doesn’t shut down gas facilities that some industry groups say are needed to ensure grid reliability.

"It is a balancing act of how much to cover, how fast,” said Julie McNamara, deputy policy director of the climate and energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “This is the challenge to EPA: How do we ensure we don’t get unintended outcomes from setting different cut points for different sources in different places.”

The Biden administration has grappled with that back-and-forth. When EPA initially sent its draft rule to the White House for review, it contained standards for coal plants and future gas plants but omitted rules for existing gas facilities. Those were added later at the behest of White House officials, E&E News reported last week.

Few facilities illustrate those challenges like Ninemile Point. The 2,439-megawatt gas plant occupies a peninsula directly across the Mississippi River from a warren of residential neighborhoods in New Orleans.

The plant has five electric generating units: two steam turbines built in the 1970s, two combustion turbines built in 2014 and a third steam turbine, which was also built in 2014.

The five units emitted 23 million tons of carbon dioxide between 2018 and 2022, according to EPA data, making Ninemile Point the sixth largest CO2 emitter among gas burning power plants in the country. It also ranked as America’s top gas-fired emitter of nitrogen oxide, an ozone-forming pollutant.

Yet not all of Ninemile Point’s units would be regulated the same way under EPA’s proposal. The plant’s two dirtiest units, the pair of 1970s-era steam turbines, would effectively be given a free pass to continue polluting at current rates.

That’s because EPA’s rule carves out a specific provision for gas-fired steam turbines, which generally operate as peaking units, ramping up quickly to meet surges in electricity demand and powering down when demand subsides. In 2022, Ninemile Point’s older steam turbines ran less than a third of the year, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration figures.

Gas-fired steam turbines are a relatively small source of overall gas plant emissions. In its regulatory review, EPA concluded that installing carbon capture or co-firing with hydrogen at such units would be costly and fail to produce significant emission reductions because they operate so infrequently.

Instead, the agency proposed capping emissions for gas-fired steam turbines based on how frequently they run. The cap would be set at a rate that most plants, Ninemile Point included, could achieve — an approach that “would not achieve emission reductions but would prevent increases in emission rates,” according to EPA.

Steam’s carve-out

Some environmentalists worry the move could backfire. By requiring pollution controls at facilities that operate more often and applying lax standards to peaking units, EPA could create an incentive for power companies to operate dirtier, less efficient units more frequently, they say.

There’s also this: A small number of gas-fired steam units are major emitters. Ninemile Point’s two steam turbines reported emissions of 8 million tons and 6.9 million tons, respectively, over the last five years, making them the first and second largest CO2 emitters among the country’s individual gas-burning electric units. Another steam turbine at the Northside Generating Station in Jacksonville, Fla., reported emissions of 6.3 million tons — the fifth most of any gas unit.

“We do have concerns that some of these units that are a significant chunk of the fleet are not necessarily going to have to do much under this proposal,” said Andres Restrepo, a senior attorney for the Sierra Club. “I think that it’s important that they really hone in on what are the maximum emission reductions they could get.”

Ninemile Point’s three newer units, by contrast, might need to install pollution controls to reduce emissions. The trio form what is known as a combined cycle unit. The two combustion units heat air and gas to turn a turbine and generate electricity. Exhaust from those turbines is then captured and converted into steam, which is fed through the third turbine to create even more electricity.

Combined cycle units accounted for about 85 percent of total gas-fired power generation in 2022 and a corresponding percentage of the fuel’s power plant emissions, according to federal figures.

Under EPA’s proposal, a combined cycle unit greater than 300 MW that runs more than half the year would need to install carbon capture by 2035, or begin co-firing with 30 percent hydrogen in 2032. That figure would rise to 96 percent by 2038.

An EPA spokesperson declined to answer detailed questions about the agency’s rationale for setting the standard. But in its regulatory analysis, the agency said a 300 MW threshold was appropriate because it “focuses on the units with the highest emissions where CCS is likely to be most cost effective.”

Environmental groups are pushing to lower the threshold for plants that would be subject to the regulation. An analysis by the Natural Resource Defense Council found EPA’s proposed standard would only cover 29 percent of gas plant emissions. If EPA lowered the threshold to 150 MW — and applied it to plants that run at least 40 percent of the time — the rules would cover 80 percent of gas plant emissions, according to the analysis.

“Gas is not a clean fuel. Gas is a huge contributor to the climate crisis,” Restrepo said. “We can’t effectively deal with the climate crisis unless we address all forms of emitting generation.”

A question of reliability

Industry groups worry gas plants may struggle to comply with the rule as written. Pollution controls like carbon capture require an extensive build-out of support infrastructure, including pipelines and storage capacity, that could take years to permit and build.

Hydrogen would also require a build-out of new gas pipelines. And it’s unclear where gas plant owners would find an ample supply of hydrogen to meet their fuel needs or if older gas turbines could be retrofitted to run almost completely on hydrogen, said Todd Snitchler, the president and CEO of the Electric Power Supply Association, a trade group representing merchant power plant owners.

EPA’s new rules, he noted, come at a time when regulators are warning of increased risks of power outages due to the rapid retirement of fossil fuel units.

“If you make rules that jeopardize the viability of the gas fleet, you don’t have sufficient resources to keep the lights on in its absence,” Snitchler said. “There’s not enough renewables, nuclear, hydro and storage to power the system if a significant level of gas retires.”

Environmentalists call that argument a red herring. Gas plants would have nine years at the earliest before the first hydrogen requirements would kick in. Power companies will also be able to call on billions of dollars in clean energy subsidies contained in the Inflation Reduction Act to support development of hydrogen and CCS.

Planning for a grid that relies on those technologies needs to begin now to ensure reliability concerns can be addressed, McNamara said.

“If we were to shut all plants overnight, of course there would be problems. Everyone knows that,” she said. “It’s a real issue, demanding planners to plan. But the way reliability is invoked around this rule is mostly in bad faith.”

At Ninemile Point, it remains an open question whether EPA’s standards will apply to its combined cycle units.

The plant’s two combustion turbines have a listed capacity of nearly 195 MW, while the associated steam turbine is listed at 260 MW. At first glance, that would appear to leave the units below EPA’s threshold requiring pollution controls. But the agency’s proposal calls for dividing up the associated steam turbine’s capacity and apportioning it to the combustion turbines based on the amount of heat each combustion turbine generates.

“Assuming the two combustion turbines are used similarly (i.e., the same annual heat input), then the MW output from the steam turbine would be apportioned 50% to each of the combustion turbines,” EPA spokesperson Melissa Sullivan said in an email. That would take the capacity of each Ninemile combustion turbine to 327 MW. Each turbine ran more than two-thirds of the year in 2022, meaning both could be subject to EPA’s more stringent standards.

Entergy Corp., the New Orleans-based utility that operates Ninemile Point, anticipates CO2 emissions from the power plant will be regulated under EPA’s proposal, according to spokesperson Neal Kirby.

Kirby called all of Ninemile Point’s turbines “important resources that provide affordable and reliable power to Entergy Louisiana’s customers.” He said the utility would remain committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions regardless of changes in EPA’s rules.

On February 21, the New Orleans City Council unanimously voted to uphold approval of Entergy's proposed natural gas power plant, which faces a growing number of lawsuits, and passed a resolution to impose a $5 million fine on the company for its role in a paid-actors scandal.

Before the vote, in nearly three hours of often emotional testimony mostly against the plant, many contended that the $5 million fine was not a sufficient punishment. This was in light of the council's commissioned investigation, which concluded the company "knew or should have known" that a subcontractor was paying actors to support its proposed power plant at council meetings.

https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/05/10/entergy-natural-gas-power-plant-new-orleans-astroturfing-campaign

Entergy New Orleans, the company that recently won approval to build a controversial $210 million natural gas power plant in the city, confirmed that actors were paid to show support for this project at public meetings. Though Entergy claims it was unaware of the situation, a public relations firm it hired had paid freelance actors to testify in favor of the project at public meetings.

On May 10, Entergy released its finding from an internal investigation revealing that the public affairs firm The Hawthorn Group, which it hired to organize “grassroots support” for the natural gas power plant, in fact paid actors to voice and show support for the plant. The Hawthorn Group in turn hired a company called Crowds on Demand to “pay individuals that it recruited to appear and/or speak at those two meetings.”

“This activity was undertaken without our knowledge or approval, and I can say unequivocally that it would not have been approved had we known,” Entergy General Counsel Marcus Brown said in a statement. “We do, however, recognize that we ultimately are responsible for the actions of those who act on our behalf, and we are taking immediate steps to prevent a similar situation from happening again.”

Earlier this week, The Lens, an investigative journalism site, reported that actors were paid $60 to show up at the meetings, and up to $200 to read a statement at two recent public meetings when critical votes regarding the plant were held.

At one meeting in October last year, 50 people wearing orange shirts that read “Clean Energy. Good Jobs. Reliable Power” filled seats in an auditorium, preventing many residents who oppose the project from getting into the room. Entergy plans to build the natural gas power plant in New Orleans East, which is home to majority African-American and Vietnamese communities, raising concerns of environmental racism. Proponents claim the plant would address New Orleans’ energy outage issues, while critics say they could be solved for less money by fixing the city’s ailing transmission system.

The Lens reported that the actors had to sign a non-disclosure agreement and were instructed not to speak to the media or tell anyone they were being paid to attend.

Before the admission, Earthjustice filed a lawsuit on behalf of opponents of the power plant, including members of the Alliance for Affordable Energy, the Sierra Club, the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, and 350 New Orleans, in order to void the actions taken at the two meetings, one a city council meeting and another a utility commission meeting.

The opponents also sent a letter to the Louisiana Attorney General, Buddy Landry, calling for an investigation into who paid for the fake participants, and possible legal and ethical violations.

Renate Heurich of 350 New Orleans testifying against the gas power plant on March 8, 2018.

Renate Heurich of 350 New Orleansdoesn’t believe Entergy didn’t know the company’s money was going to paid actors at the public meetings. “I think the corruption goes much deeper than that,” she told me. “Why else would anyone on the council vote ‘yes’ on a project that has no value for the residents of New Orleans?”

At the March council meeting before the vote for the plant was held, Heurich pleaded with the council not to invest in a fossil fuel infrastructure project in a city already plagued by the effects of climate change. “The vote for the plant, clearly wasn’t based on logic,” Heurich said. “The only one who benefits is Entergy.

Astroturfing — secretly paying for efforts to create the illusion of grassroots support — is nothing new, but proving a company like Entergy may be involved can be challenging.

Hawthorn, however, has a history of astroturf campaigns on behalf of the energy industry, as pointed out by the Energy and Policy Institute. In 2009, the company, paid by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, hired a subcontractor to create the illusion of grassroots support against climate change legislation, which involved forging letters from minority groups such as NAACP’s Charlottesville chapter. And sometimes paid support can take another form — such as the fact that Entergy's foundation donated more than a million dollars to at least nine charitable organizations that testified on the plant's behalf, without always disclosing those donations, at the same public meetings now under scrutiny.*

Brendan DeMelle, DeSmog’s executive director, wrote about a 2014 astroturf effort made by communications firm Edelman on behalf of TransCanada for the Energy East tar sands export pipeline (a project ultimately killed in 2017). Documents obtained by Greenpeace outline a “grassroots advocacy” campaign plan to build support for TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline, as well as to undermine public opposition to oil and pipelines generally.

Entergy’s claim that it didn’t know about the astroturfing effort made on its behalf sounded disingenuous to members of the coalition against the plant whom I spoke with after Entergy released its findings.

Happy Johnson testifying at a New Orleans City Council Meeting against Entergy’s proposed natural gas power plant. FLAnked by 2 cops about to pull him out?!

Happy Johnson, author and humanitarian and an outspoken opponent to the gas plant, hopes in light of Entergy’s admission the permit will be reconsidered. According to Johnson, at the next council meeting on May 24, opponents plan to make their case to the newly seated city council that the permit needs to be revoked. “With this kind of trickery, I hope the new council will do the right thing and take another look,” Johnson said.

desmog

The Lens reported that the actors had to sign a non-disclosure agreement and were instructed not to speak to the media or tell anyone they were being paid to attend.

The opponents also sent a letter to the Louisiana Attorney General, Buddy Landry, calling for an investigation into who paid for the fake participants, and possible legal and ethical violations.

...

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/05/608785751/new-orleans-news-site-finds-actors-were-paid-to-support-a-power-plant

Multiple actors were paid to appear at City Hall meetings in New Orleans and express support for a proposed gas-powered power plant, an investigative news site reports, citing interviews with actors and messages with organizers.

The New Orleans City Council approved the new Entergy power plant in March. Allegations have been swirling for weeks that some of the seeming supporters of the plant were actually paid actors, but now The Lens has published evidence. The site notes that the practice "appears to be legal."

Entergy New Orleans denies the claims. "The recent allegations that some supporters of the New Orleans Power Station may have been paid to attend or speak at certain public meetings are troubling and run counter to the values of our company," Entergy said in a statement on Sunday to NPR. "Entergy did not pay, nor did we authorize any other person or entity to pay supporters to attend or speak at council meetings."

The company continued that it is in the process of investigating "to determine if anyone retained by the company has acted in any way inconsistent" with Entergy's values, adding, "We will take swift and appropriate action if warranted."

You can read the full story on The Lens' website.

Long before the allegations surfaced, The Lens noted the striking number of bright orange T-shirts — celebrating clean energy, good jobs and reliable power — worn at a meeting in October to invite public comments on the proposal.

At that meeting, The Lens reported at the time, the president and CEO of Entergy New Orleans chuckled and said, "I think we've got them outnumbered."

Then, in early March, actor Andrew Wiseman spoke out publicly to say he was paid to sit in a meeting wearing one of those orange shirts.

Inspired by that disclosure, a lawyer compared speakers at the City Hall meetings with professional actor profiles and identified three other apparent actors in the audience. But he did not offer any evidence that those actors were paid to speak at the meeting.

A coalition of environmental advocacy groups then sued to reverse the approval of the plant for a variety of reasons. One of their suits alleges that opponents of the plant were turned away from public meetings because of a lack of space, while supporters — possibly including paid supporters — were allowed to enter early.

Entergy told local news station WWLTV that "seats were available on a first-come, first-served" basis and that it "did not pay anyone to attend."

Now The Lens, a nonprofit news organization, has published new evidencesuggesting a campaign to recruit, organize and pay people, including people from outside of New Orleans, to express support for the power plant.

One actor, in addition to Andrew Wiseman, was willing to go on the record.

"They paid us to sit through the meeting and clap every time someone said something against wind and solar power," Keith Keough told The Lens, saying he was not political and just needed the money.

Two more actors spoke to The Lens anonymously. The site also obtained screenshots of messages exchanged with a man who was apparently organizing the effort.

Those messages, which are displayed in the Lens' story, described when and where to appear, offered recruitment bonuses for finding more people for the event, provided talking points and full speeches to deliver, and referenced nondisclosure agreements.

The Lens reports that participants were paid $60 for showing up and wearing a shirt, and $200 for delivering a speech in support of the plant.

The news outlet also said that in one message, the organizer referenced "Crowds on Demand." In 2016, Davy Rothbart wrote about that company, which supplies fake crowds for events, for The California Report.

Sourcing The Crowd: California Company Stages Phony Protests June 9, 2016

He spoke to NPR about his experience going undercover to get jobs with them, describing the company's strategy as savvy and smart.

"I think it's effective, but I also think it's a little gross," he said.

Rothbart said that during his time with Crowds on Demand, nobody really seemed to be worried about being discovered as a paid protester.

"I don't think it crosses anybody's mind," he said. "It's just still kind of a secretive line of work, and I think most people aren't that clued into the possibility of hired crowd members."

But the messages acquired by The Lens show a preoccupation with not getting caught. In one missive, the organizer listed "a few things to keep in mind":

1) Tell nobody you're being paid

2) Tell nobody you're being paid

3) Media will be present, do not talk to them

4) Tell nobody you're being paid

5) If someone approaches you, don't tell them you're being paid.

The alleged organizer who sent that message did not respond to The Lens' request for comment. Another alleged organizer told the news site he helps run "grassroots organizations and campaigns," but did not respond to further inquiries.

Crowds on Demand has not yet responded to NPR's request for comment.

It's not clear who paid for the effort — or how many people were paid and how many were legitimate supporters.

But in March, at a meeting where there are no allegations of paid supporters, the room was "dominated by opponents," The Lens writes.

total:

CONTRIBUTIONS

$6,917,453

since 1990

LOBBYING

$53,549,242

since 1998

OUTSIDE SPENDING

2012 CONTRIBUTIONS

$892,599

ranks 453 of 20,939

LOBBYING

$4,070,000 (2012)

$4,900,000 (2011)

ranks 126 of 4,366 in 2012

OUTSIDE SPENDING

MEMBERS

INVESTED

Explain these rankings to me

CONTRIBUTIONS: $892,599

Contributions to candidates: $500,563

Contributions to Leadership PACs: $71,800

Contributions to parties: $161,506

Contributions to 527 committees: $154,325

Contributions to outside spending groups: $14,705

Recipient	Total	From Indivs	From Orgs
Democratic Governors Assn	$100,000	$0	$100,000
Republican Governors Assn	$50,000	$0	$50,000
National Republican Congressional Cmte	$36,770	$1,770	$35,000
Republican National Cmte	$32,750	$2,750	$30,000
Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte	$32,500	$2,500	$30,000
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte	$31,000	$1,000	$30,000
Obama, Barack	$28,600	$28,600	$0
National Republican Senatorial Cmte	$25,500	$500	$25,000
Upton, Fred	$25,100	$15,600	$9,500
Hayworth, Nan	$22,700	$8,700	$14,000

Top Candidate Recipients, 2011-2012

Barack Obama (D)	$28,600
Fred Upton (R-MI)	$25,100
Nan Hayworth (R-NY)	$22,700
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)	$20,000
Cedric Richmond (D-LA)	$10,750

Entergy

From SourceWatch

Jump to: navigation, search

Learn more from the Center for Media and Democracy's portal on climate change.

This article is part of the Center for Media & Democracy's focus on the fallout of nuclear "spin."


This article is part of the Coal Issues portal on SourceWatch, a project of CoalSwarm and the Center for Media and Democracy.

Entergy Corporation| Type | Public (NYSE: ETR) |

Headquarters	639 Loyola Ave. New Orleans, LA 70113
Area served	AR, LA, MS, TX
Key people	J. Wayne Leonard, CEO
Industry	Electric Producer and Utility
Products	Electricity
Revenue	$11.48 billion (2007)^[1]
Net income	▲ $1.13 billion (2007)^[1]
Employees	14,185 (2007)
Subsidiaries	Entergy Arkansas Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Entergy New Orleans Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy Texas Entergy Nuclear Entergy Solutions Entergy Thermal
Website	Entergy.com

Entergy Corporation is an integrated energy company engaged primarily in electric power productions and retail distribution operations. A member of the Fortune 500, Entergy, headquartered in New Orleans, owns and operates power plants with approximately 30,000 megawatts of electric generating capacity, and it is the second-largest nuclear generator in the United States. Entergy delivers electricity to 2.7 million utility customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.^[2]

Prior to naming itself "Entergy" in May 1989 -- a name the company describes as "a composite of the words 'enterprise,' 'energy' and 'synergy'" -- the company had done business as the Arkansas Light and Power Company, Mississippi Power and Light Company, Louisiana Power Company, Electric Power and Light Corporation, and Middle South Utilities, Inc. [2]

Contents[hide]

CEO compensation

In May 2007, Forbes listed Entergy CEO J. Wayne Leonard as receiving $8.5 million in total compensation for the latest fiscal year, with a five-year total compensation of $40.06 million. He ranked 11th on the list of CEOs in the Utilities industry, and 206th among all CEOs in the United States.^[3]

Power portfolio

Out of its total 32,854 MW of electric generating capacity in 2005 (3.08% of the U.S. total), Entergy produces 56.5% from natural gas, 30.1% from nuclear, 12.3% from coal, 0.8% from oil, and 0.4% from hydroelectricity. Entergy owns power plants in Arkansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York, Texas, and Vermont; 40.9% of the company's generating capacity is in Louisiana, and 23.2% is in Arkansas.^[4]

Entergy CEO acknowledges climate change as the biggest issue for the power industry

At Entergy's annual meeting in May 2009, CEO J. Wayne Leonard told shareholders that global warming is the most important challenge for his industry and "possibly the biggest risk the world has ever faced." Leonard went on to say that the costs of climate change are much greater than the costs of acting to prevent it, and that taking only small steps will do nothing to avoid catastrophe. However, Leonard also argued against wind power and other renewable energy sources as the correct path of action, instead insisting that the only viable course is to retrofit existing coal plants with carbon capture and storage capabilities. "The U.S. cannot afford to shut down its existing coal plants, and China cannot afford to stop building coal plants. There is only one solution, and that is to fix what we have," he said.^[5]

Companies

Companies within the Entergy corporate structure include: [3]

Entergy Arkansas
Entergy New Orleans
Entergy Louisiana
Entergy Mississippi
Entergy Texas
Entergy Nuclear

Entergy Nuclear

Entergy owns and operates 11 nuclear power units located on nine different sites: [4]

Arkansas Nuclear One Unit One and Unit Two - Russellville, Arkansas
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station - Port Gibson, Mississippi
River Bend - St. Francisville, Louisiana
Waterford 3 - Taft, Louisiana
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station - Plymouth, Massachusetts
James A. FitzPatrick - Oswego, New York
Indian Point Energy Center Unit Two and Unit Three - Buchanan, New York
Vermont Yankee - Vernon, Vermont.
Palisades, Covert, Michigan

It also operates the Cooper nuclear power station in Brownville, Nebraska. This station is "owned by Nebraska Public Power District and operated by a management team from Entergy Nuclear under a long-term agreement." ^[6]

The company won a license extension for its Arkansas Nuclear One Unit One plant in 2001, allowing the plant to operate until 2034. The company's license renewal applications for its Vermont Yankee and Pilgrim nuclear plants are pending, as of February 2007. [5]

Spin-off plans

In November 2007, Reuters reported that Entergy was planning to "spin off five nuclear plants into a new company in a bid to capitalize on the greenhouse-gas-friendly technology." The new company would be "50 percent owned by Entergy," would have $4.5 billion in debt, and would include "the Pilgrim station in Plymouth, Massachusetts; the Fitzpatrick and Indian Point plants in Oswego and Buchanan, New York; the Palisade plant in Covert, Michigan; and the Vermont Yankee plant in Vernon, Vermont." ^[7]

The Entergy nuclear spin-off would be "the nation's first stand-alone, publicly traded nuclear-energy company," reported the Wall Street Journal. According to Entergy's CEO, the spin-off would "take assets for which it paid about $2 billion and put them in a new company with a market value approaching $20 billion." In addition, "As an unregulated, standalone company, the new company could carry a higher debt ratio." ^[8]

The plants owned by the spin-off might enjoy increased profit margins, according to the Wall Street Journal. "Entergy, Exelon and other consolidators have increased the productivity of nuclear plants, and they are able to collect rising prices in deregulated markets as supply margins shrink, including new 'capacity' payments in organized Northeast markets. During the next five years, sales contracts on the output of the five plants that Entergy intends to spin off are expiring. It is negotiating new prices that are as much as triple the old ones." ^[8]

By July 2008, Entergy had received permission from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Energy Regulatory Commission to spin off five of its nuclear plants. "The plants would be owned by a new public company, Enexus Energy Corp., and operated by a new joint venture known as EquaGen Nuclear LLC and owned by Enexus and Entergy," reported the Patriot Ledger. The company was waiting for approval from the Securities and Exchange Commission and New York and Vermont regulators. ^[9]

New York officials expressed concern that "Entergy, by creating the spinoff, [might try to] end a long-standing revenue-sharing deal with the state that is valued at more than $432 million over the next six years. Another issue is whether Enexus would have the financial wherewithal to pay for any needed work at the plants and their eventual decommissioning." New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said, "Entergy's plan is ill-conceived on a number of levels. It could ultimately cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, does nothing to guarantee adequate decontamination of the site, and does not anticipate a future without Indian Point." ^[10]

In August 2008, Entergy and New York reached an agreement on the status of their revenue-sharing arrangement, if the company's nuclear plants are spun off into a new company. Under the reported agreement, "New York state will continue to receive as much as $72 million a year through 2014," the end-point of the original arrangement. The agreement resolves the dispute with the New York Power Authority, but the spin-off still needs approval from the New York Public Service Commission and other state regulators." ^[11]

However, in October 2008, Entergy said it would probably delay its spin-off plans, as "'unprecedented turmoil in financial markets' has clouded prospects for completion of the largely debt-financed transaction." ^[12]

Promoting nuclear power

Entergy is involved with three applications to build new reactors. On September 22, 2005, it announced its intention to seek a permit to construct and operate a new nuclear reactor at its River Bend site in Louisiana. It is expected that Entergy will submit its application for a Combined Operating License (COL) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in early 2008. The regulatory review is expected to take approximately three years, and construction is expected to take about four years. The best-case scenario (from Entergy’s perspective) would see the new reactor operational in 2015.^[13]

The other applications are through the NuStart Consortium, one at Entergy’s Grand Gulf site,^[14] where Entergy is seeking an Early Site Permit^[15] to environmentally qualify the site for a new nuclear reactor, and one at the Bellefonte site in Alabama, owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority.^[16]

Perhaps with an eye towards its nuclear plant holdings, "Entergy has pledged to cap greenhouse gases by partnering with the Environmental Defense Fund." (Entergy's Climate Report)

Problems at Indian Point

In August 2007, the New York Times reported on Entergy's problems with getting its "new $15 million emergency siren system up and running" at the Indian Point nuclear power station in New York. "The sirens are meant to alert residents within 10 miles of the plant of an emergency," explained the Times. But, during testing, "sirens that were supposed to be heard miles away were inaudible in several areas. Alarms that were meant to be tested silently blared unexpectedly, startling residents who had not been warned." [6]

"The system was supposed to be working by the end of January [2007]. Entergy received a 75-day extension from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But on April 12, three days before the second target date, 31 sirens failed to sound during a test. After Entergy missed the April deadline, the N.R.C. fined the company $130,000." The third deadline was August 24- Entergy spokesman Jim Steets said the company is "confident we’ll make it." [7]

The siren problems "come in the midst of Entergy’s application to renew the nuclear power plants' licenses for another 20 years," noted the Times. "Indian Point 2's license expires in 2013, Indian Point 3's in 2015." But "the siren problem has no bearing on the relicensing." [8]

On August 31, 2007, the New York Times reported that Entergy "had missed its third deadline for installing the [emergency siren] system and could face fines." [9]

In January 2008, the NRC proposed a $650,000 fine against Indian Point, for not meeting the "deadline to install new emergency warning sirens with backup power supplies." The fine is "10 times the normal size" of such sanctions, reported the New York Times, with possible additional fines if the safety requirements are not met "in a timely manner." ^[17]

In April 2009, Entergy hired the Breaux Lott Leadership Group PR firm, to "deal with nuclear issues as the license of its Indian Point facility ... is up for renewal." The firm's leadership, former U.S. Senators John Breaux and Trent Lott, will work on the Entergy account, along with their sons. "A round of raucous public hearings is expected" as part of Indian Point's license renewal application, according to the trade publication O'Dwyer's. ^[18]

Indian Point safety panel

In March 2008, Entergy announced the formation of an "Independent Safety Evaluation" panel, to "provide public assurances about the operation and protection of New York's largest nuclear power facility." Entergy selected panel co-chairs Drs. James Rhoades and Neil Todreas. The co-chairs then recruited the other ten panel members. The environmental group Riverkeeper and local elected officials questioned the independence of the panel, since Entergy is paying panel members. ^[19]

The Indian Point panel's media contact is Matthew Simmons of Potomac Communications Group. ^[19] On behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the Potomac PR firm previously ghost-wrote pro-nuclear op/eds that appeared in newspapers across the country. The Austin Chronicle, which reported the campaign, called it "Big Nuke's vast op-ed conspiracy: a decades-long, centrally orchestrated plan to defraud the nation's newspaper readers by misrepresenting the propaganda of one hired atomic gun as the learned musings of disparate academics and other nuclear-industry 'experts.'" ^[20]

Buying support in Vermont and New York

"Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee just gave Building a Better Brattleboro, the nonprofit that decorates the town, a $10,000 check to truly shine," reported Vermont's Brattleboro Reformer in December 2006. "In addition to providing the funding, employees at the nuclear power plant will install, hang up, take down and store the new lights." ^[21]

Entergy is a member of the Vermont Energy Partnership and of the New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance (NY AREA). [10] According to one news account, NY AREA is "funded at least partly by Entergy, [the] Indian Point [nuclear power plant]'s owner." ^[22]

Being the media in New York

Entergy Nuclear sponsors the monthly radio show "Green on Energy," which airs on WVOX 1460 AM in Westchester, New York. The show is hosted by Lawrence Gottlieb, and has featured interviews with nuclear industry consultant Patrick Moore, Ashok Gupta of the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Paul Genoa from the Nuclear Energy Institute industry group. ^[23]

The radio show's host appears to be the same Larry Gottlieb who is Entergy's director of communications. ^[24] ^[25]

Coal plant in Louisiana on hold

On March 11, 2009, the Louisiana PSC ordered Entergy Louisiana to suspend the Little Gypsy Repowering project, citing lower gas prices, escalating construction costs, and pending regulations of carbon regulations by the Obama administration. The PSC wants to discuss the economic viability of continuing the project at its next meeting in April.^[26]

On April 2, 2009, Entergy Louisiana announced it had agreed with state regulators to delay the repowering project for at least three years. The decision was based in part "on significant uncertainties in the economics of the project," according to a company spokesman.^[27]

Existing coal-fired power plants

Entergy owned 5 coal-fired generating stations in 2005, with 4,015 MW of capacity. Here is a list of Entergy's coal power plants:^[4][28][29]

Plant Name	State	County	Year(s) Built	Capacity	2007 CO₂ Emissions	2006 SO₂ Emissions
White Bluff	AR	Jefferson	1980, 1981	1700 MW	12,400,000 tons	38,122 tons
Independence	AR	Independence	1983, 1984	1700 MW	12,200,000 tons	26,172 tons
Nelson	LA	Calcasieu	1982	615 MW	7,250,000 tons	17,445 tons

In 2006, Entergy's 3 coal-fired power plants emitted 31.9 million tons of CO₂ (0.53% of all U.S. CO₂ emissions) and 82,000 tons of SO₂ (0.54% of all U.S. SO₂ emissions).

Lobbying

According to the Lobbyist.info online database (accessed February 26, 2007; sub req'd), Entergy's in-house lobbying staff include Trevin Dalton, Jerald V. Halvorsen, and Ann L. Pride. [11]

The company's outside lobbyists and consultants include EOP Group on budget and appropriations issues; KPMG on taxation; McGlotten & Jarvis on nuclear energy and safety / consumer issues; Daryl Owen Associates on nuclear power, taxation, and utility issues; Quinn Gillespie & Associates on banking; and Ryan, Phillips, Utrecht & MacKinnon on nuclear energy and environmental issues. [12]

Entergy spent $1,373,885 on lobbying in 2004, according to the Center for Public Integrity. Outside lobbying firms retained by Entergy since 1998 include the Palmetto Group, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, WPP Group, Fleishman-Hillard, David Sibley, Federalist Group (now Ogilvy Government Relations), Capitol Hill Consulting Group, KPMG, Darryl Owen Associates, National Environmental Strategies Company, McGlotten & Jarvis, Baker & Botts, Edward W. Rissing, and The Allbaugh Company. [13]

The company also runs a political action committee, headed by Trevin Dalton, the Entergy Corporation PAC (EnPAC). [14] According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Entergy gave $498,227 to federal candidates and parties during the 2004 election cycle (61% to Republicans), and $459,258 during the 2006 cycle (55% to Republicans). Most of the money was given through EnPAC. [15] [16] [17]

Entergy Nuclear is also a member of the Nuclear Energy Institute.^[30]

Public relations

In May 2002, Jack O'Dwyer's Newsletter reported that "Burson-Marsteller is handling the public and media uproar over the safety of New York's Indian Point nuclear plant for the facility's owner Entergy Corp. ... The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in its annual review of the nation's 103 reactors released last month, gave the Indian Point 2 reactor its lowest performance rating. Larry Gottlieb, director of communications for New Orleans-based Entergy, said B-M was hired 'mainly for the Indian Point issues, but its work now includes handling the overall image of the company.'" [18]

The following year, Entergy "hired Giuliani Partners to counsel its northeast nuclear division on security and crisis management issues," reported Jack O'Dwyer's Newsletter, noting that "Burson-Marsteller [still] does PR for Entergy." [19]

According to the PR firm's website, the Potomac Communications Group also works for Entergy. [20] In 2008, Potomac promoted Entergy's Indian Point "Independent Safety Evaluation" panel. ^[19]. In 2004, the Austin Chronicle reported that the Potomac firm had been ghostwriting pro-nuclear power op/ed columns for the Nuclear Energy Institute. ^[31]

In 1997, Entergy was one of five utility companies to form "TVA Watch" or "TVA Reform Alliance," a group critical of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The utilities' group hired the PR firm Dittus Communications, "to wage a campaign against TVA using, in some respects, incorrect and misleading statements and information," according to a complaint from then-TVA General Counsel Edward Christenbury. (Source: Kent Faulk, "TVA Urges Probe of Utility Group," Birmingham News (Alabama), April 17, 1997)

PR awards

Entergy won "PR Campaign of the Year 2006" for "Surviving Hurricanes Katrina and Rita - the Communications Challenge of a Lifetime." In the wake of the hurricanes, "Entergy's corporate communications team" needed to highlight "its progress under intense media scrutiny, and "win the sympathy and patience of customers frustrated after living days or weeks without electricity," wrote PR Week. The company used "news releases, daily media updates, press conferences, and periodic briefings for government officials." For internal communications, Entergy set up "an information line ... with recorded messages, newsletters, e-mails, IEStormNet website, and EntergyRadio.com," as well as producing a video "to rally employees." [21]

In 2004, Entergy was a runner-up for the "Community Relations Campaign of the Year," for its campaign "Preparing for a Nuclear Plant Emergency: Community emergency planning for Indian Point on behalf of Entergy Corporation and government." The PR firm RF Binder Partners worked on the campaign for Entergy. [22] [23]

In 2001, Entergy was nominated for the Public Relations Society of America's Silver Anvil Award, for its campaign titled, "Entergy Ice Storm Outage Response: Heroes on Ice."

Congressional campaign contributions

Entergy is one of the largest energy company contributors to both Republican and Democratic candidates for Congress. These contributions total $338,725 to the 110th US Congress (as of the third quarter), the largest of which has been to Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) for $21,500. Senator Levin, for his part, is a strong supporter of the coal industry on energy bills.[24]

Contributions like this from fossil fuel companies to members of Congress are often seen as a political barrier to pursuing clean energy.[25]

More information on coal industry contributions to Congress can be found at FollowtheCoalMoney.org, a project sponsored by the nonpartisan, nonprofit Oil Change International and Appalachian Voices.

Executive management

From the company's website (accessed February 26, 2007): [26]

J. Wayne Leonard - Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Leo Denault - Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Curt L. Hébert - Jr. Executive Vice President, External Affairs; former Federal Energy Regulatory Commission chair and Hill & Knowlton vice-president [27]
William E. Madison - Sr. Vice President, Human Resources and Administration
Mark T. Savoff - Executive Vice President, Operations
Robert Sloan - Executive Vice President & General Counsel
Richard Smith - Group President, Utility Operations
Gary Taylor - Chief Executive Officer - Entergy Nuclear
Renae Conley - President & CEO, Entergy Louisiana
Joe Domino - President & CEO, Entergy Texas
Hugh McDonald - President & CEO, Entergy Arkansas
Rod West - President & CEO, Entergy New Orleans
Haley Fisackerly - President & CEO, Entergy Mississippi
Michael Kansler - President, Entergy Nuclear Northeast
John R. McGaha - President, Entergy Nuclear South
Michael D. Bakewell - Senior Vice President, Fossil Operations

Contact information

Website: http://www.entergy.com

Website: Entergy nuclear: http://www.entergy-nuclear.com/

Website: Entergy Awards: http://www.entergy.com/about_entergy/awards.aspx

Coal Ash Waste and Water Contamination

In August 2010 a study released by the Environmental Integrity Project, the Sierra Club and Earthjustice reported that Arkansas, along with 34 states, had significant groundwater contamination from coal ash that is not currently regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The report, in an attempt to pressure the EPA to regulate coal ash, noted that most states do not monitor drinking water contamination levels near waste disposal sites.^[32] The report mentioned Arkansas based Flint Creek Power Plant and the Independence Steam Station were two sites that have groundwater contamination due to coal ash waste.^[33]

Other coal waste sites

To see a nationwide list of over 350 coal waste sites in the United States, **click here**. To see a listing of coal waste sites in a particular state, click on the map:

Articles and resources

References

↑ ^1.0 ^1.1 Entergy Corp., BusinessWeek Company Insight Center, accessed July 2008.
↑ 2007 Annual Report[1]
↑ CEO Compensation: #206 J Wayne Leonard, Forbes.com, May 3, 2007.
↑ ^4.0 ^4.1 Existing Electric Generating Units in the United States, 2005, Energy Information Administration, accessed April 2008.
↑ "Entergy CEO says coal is the answer to global warming," Times-Picayune, May 8, 2009.
↑ Entergy Nuclear, "Plant Information", undated, accessed December 2007.
↑ "Entergy Plans Nuclear Plant Spin-off," Reuters, November 5, 2007.
↑ ^8.0 ^8.1 Rebecca Smith, "Entergy Nuclear Spinoff Taps Rising Plant Values," Wall Street Journal (sub req'd), November 6, 2007.
↑ "Entergy gets OK to spin off Pilgrim nuclear plant," The Patriot Ledger (Quincy, Massachusetts), July 29, 2008.
↑ Editorial: "What's up with Indian Point?" The Journal News (New York), July 30, 2008.
↑ "Entergy, New York Reach Deal Tied to Nuclear-Power Spinoff," Wall Street Journal (sub req'd), August 26, 2008.
↑ Rebecca Smith, "Entergy to Postpone Spinoff," Wall Street Journal (sub req'd), October 29, 2008.
↑ Public Citizen website, accessed December 2006 Page on River Bend.
↑ Public Citizen website, accessed December 2006 Page on Grand Gulf
↑ For more information about Early Site Permits and Combined Operating Licences see the Public Citizen website
↑ Public Citizen website, accessed December 2006 Page on Bellefonte.
↑ Matthew Wald, "$650,000 Fine Urged for Indian Point Owner," New York Times, January 25, 2008.
↑ "Entergy Plus into Breaux Lott," O'Dwyer's PR Daily (sub req'd), April 7, 2009.
↑ ^19.0 ^19.1 ^19.2 Diane Farsetta, "Indian Point on the Potomac: Entergy's New Safety Panel and PR Firm," Center for Media and Democracy, April 2, 2008.
↑ William D. Adler, "Will Shill for Nukes", The Austin Chronicle, April 16, 2004.
↑ Cate Lecuyer, "Entergy to enhance town's holiday glow," Brattleboro Reformer (Vermont), December 4, 2006.
↑ Michael Risinit, "Relicensing battle brews at Indian Pt," The Journal News (Westchester County, NY), March 30, 2005.
↑ "Environment," Entergy Nuclear's Indian Point plant website, accessed November 2007.
↑ Press release, "Six Lower Hudson Valley Nonprofits Selected to Receive Air Time on Yankee Radio Donated by Entergy," Entergy Nuclear, 2007.
↑ Green Storm Trooper, "Entergy Propaganda - How Low Can They Go?," Green Nuclear Butterfly blog, November 12, 2007.
↑ "PSC suspends power project," Associated Press, March 11, 2009.
↑ "Entergy agrees to delay Louisiana pet-coke plant," Reuters, April 2, 2009.
↑ Environmental Integrity Project, Dirty Kilowatts: America’s Most Polluting Power Plants, July 2007.
↑ Dig Deeper, Carbon Monitoring for Action database, accessed June 2008.
↑ Nuclear Energy Institute, Nuclear Energy Institute Member Roster", August 2007. (Pdf)
↑ William D. Adler, "Will Shill for Nukes", The Austin Chronicle, April 16, 2004.
↑ "Study of coal ash sites finds extensive water contamination" Renee Schoff, Miami Herald, August 26, 2010.
↑ "Enviro groups: ND, SD coal ash polluting water" Associated Press, August 24, 2010.

External resources

External articles

"B-M Reps 'Chernobyl-on-Hudson'," Jack O'Dwyer's Newsletter (sub req'd), May 1, 2002.
"Giuliani Counsels Indian Point Owner," Jack O'Dwyer's Newsletter (sub req'd), May 21, 2003.
"PR Campaign of the Year 2006: Entergy Corporation: Surviving Hurricanes Katrina and Rita – the Communications Challenge of a Lifetime," PR Week (sub req'd), 2006 awards listings.
Diane Farsetta, "Moore Spin: Or, How Reporters Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Nuclear Front Groups," PR Watch, March 14, 2007.
"States maneuver to lure new nuclear power plants," MarketWatch, May 21, 2007.
Kate Stone Lombardi, "Warning System or Cause for Alarm?" New York Times, August 12, 2007.
"Buchanan: Indian Point Misses Siren Deadline," Associated Press, August 31, 2007.
"Entergy Plans Nuclear Plant Spin-off," Reuters, November 5, 2007.
Cindy Skrzycki, "Nuclear Safety Rule Ignites Strong Reactions," Washington Post, January 15, 2008.
Shay Totten, "Ducking Responsibility: Entergy Spins Its Nukes," CorpWatch, August 4, 2008.
Bob Audette, "NRC denies union's request to intervene in license transfer," Brattleboro Reformer (Vermont), August 27, 2008.
Andrew Henderson, "Officials applaud renewal of Entergy's operating license," The Valley News (Oswego County, New York), September 13, 2008.
Susan Smallheer, "Vt. Yankee hearing draws 250," Rutland Herald (Vermont), September 16, 2008.
Greg Clary, "Entergy plans to spin off Indian Point, other nuclear plants," The Journal News (New York), October 12, 2008.
Susan Smallheer, "Financial future of nuke spinoffs in doubt," The Rutland Herald (Vermont), October 12, 2008.
Greg Clary, "US Supreme Court to hear Indian Point case Tuesday," Gannett News Service via Poughkeepsie Journal (New York), December 1, 2008.
Greg Clary, "17 safety problems found at Indian Pt.," The Journal News (New York), January 22, 2009.
Press release, "Entergy's Work to Help Low-Income Customers Receives National Recognition: Accepts Best Practices Award for Innovative Initiative to Help Less Fortunate," Entergy via PRNewswire, April 30, 2009.
"John Edwards, NWR Driver, Feels 'Out of His League' At Baseball Event," TheAutoChannel.com, July 1, 2009.

Retrieved from "http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Entergy"

Entergy

===

Steam’s carve-out

A question of reliability

CONTRIBUTIONS: $892,599

Entergy

From SourceWatch

CEO compensation

Power portfolio

Entergy CEO acknowledges climate change as the biggest issue for the power industry

Companies

Entergy Nuclear

Spin-off plans

Promoting nuclear power

Problems at Indian Point

Indian Point safety panel

Buying support in Vermont and New York

Being the media in New York

Coal plant in Louisiana on hold

Existing coal-fired power plants

Lobbying

Public relations

PR awards

Congressional campaign contributions

Executive management

Contact information

Coal Ash Waste and Water Contamination

Other coal waste sites

Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch articles

References

External resources

External articles