“Code of Entegrity” (some blog items write themselves)

Uncategorized

I’m sorry, I really am, but there is no possible way I could see the phrase “Code of Entegrity” written as a serious line without going a little off the rails.

So… this “Code of Entegrity” is something that came up in this piece from the Rutland Herald, talking about how an “in house” investigation cleared all Entergy employees of wrongdoing with respect to Entergy’s misleading of public officials regarding the existence (sorry — “Exestencegy”) of underground pipes.

Specifically, Entergy’s internal report states that “no one made any intentionally false statements in state regulatory proceeding” but that “certain Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee personnel did not clarify certain understandings and assumptions, which resulted in misunderstandings, when viewed in a context different from the one understood.”

Let’s highlight that phrase:

…certain Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee personnel did not clarify certain understandings and assumptions, which resulted in misunderstandings, when viewed in a context different from the one understood.

So I’m thinking a game is in order.  What do you guys think might be the tenants of the “Code of Entegrity.”

I’m thinking:

  1. don’t get caught;

  2. drop your friends when things get hot;

  3. run when you can.

10 thoughts on ““Code of Entegrity” (some blog items write themselves)”

  1. One of the ways the Wall Street banker clique was able to game their books so we would all be convinced they were fiscally sound and prudent was to engage in short term trades. The process involved Wall Street Banker A borrowing money from Wall Street Banker B, and A would use their financial instruments commonly known as credit default options (CDOs) for collateral. Wall Street Banker A would then put all the borrowed cash on it’s books as an asset, A’s books would be gone over and A would look solid as hell.

    Once A had been given a AAA rating A would return the cash to B and replace the asset cash with the known shaky and possibly negative value of the CDOs.

    Now back to Julie’s third link above:

    In the wake of the Vermont Senate’s decision on Wednesday to shut down an Entergy Corp.-owned nuclear plant, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood is questioning the company’s recent transfer of $1.3 billion from its parent company that oversees operations in Mississippi to its troubled nuclear program.

    . . .

    Entergy Corp., in its 4th Quarter 2009 Earnings Report, noted that the nuclear side of the company had received $1.3 billion from the utility that provides service to Mississippi taxpayers.

    “My translation of the (transfer) means that the regulated utilities like Entergy Mississippi, which are subsidiaries of Entergy Corp., put $1.3 billion less in their pockets in 2009,” General Hood stated in a letter to Vermont Attorney General William H. Sorrell. “One of my claims in Mississippi is that Entergy Corp. has wrongfully transferred money from the regulated utilities to Entergy’s Nuclear businesses and that money should be returned to Mississippi ratepayers.”

    (MS Attorney General Jim Hood continues to hound Entergy for money, WPMP, 02/26/10)

    I’m wondering if this wasn’t an attempt to shore up the appearance of financial health for Louisiana Entergy’s nuclear division prior to that massive spin off they had been proposing. Once the spin off was created the money would of course have to be returned to Louisiana Entergy’s regulated Mississippi divisions … leaving a huge financial hole in the business plan that various state regulators would have already approved.

    Let your imagination run from here ……….

  2. I guess that level of incoherence has simply come to be accepted following eight years of Geo. Bush.

    …and in keeping with Douglas’ Challenges for Change proposal that could allow ANR to simply rubber-stamp permits that the applicant “self-certifies”: who are we kidding with all this “in house investigation?”

  3. to Entergy, everyone expects that.

    What matters to the lethargic state regulators? Evidence suggests it isn’t the public good as the plant has cheerfully leaked and dribbled for months maybe years.  

  4. Is in hot water with the federal clean water act:

    In a major victory for environmental advocates, New York State has ruled that outmoded technology at the Indian Point nuclear power plant kills so many Hudson River fish, and consumes and contaminates so much water, that it violates the federal Clean Water Act.

    From the NYT:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04…

    And IP is set to shut down in 2013.

    Makes perfect sense that Entergy wants a spin off.

  5. Corporations are people.

    People that are Immortal narcissistic sociopaths.  

    The only right and wrong they know is protecting shareholder value for the next quarterly report.

Comments are closed.