Entergy Corp., owners of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, filed a lawsuit against the state of Vermont in U.S. District Court this morning. The Louisiana-based company says the Nuclear Regulatory Commission — not Vermont lawmakers — should decide whether the plant can continue operating beyond 2012.

The NRC has already granted the plant a 20-year license extension, but the Vermont Senate voted last year to deny Entergy permission to keep operating the plant beyond next year.

The lawsuit comes as no surprise. Shay Totten explored the possibility that Entergy would sue in a story in the February 2010 Vermont Yankee issue of Seven Days (Shay is on vacation this week.)

From last year’s story:

Rep. Tony Klein (D-East Montpelier) said he has discussed the issue with several attorneys and believes Vermont is on solid legal footing.

Others are not so sure. Vermont Law School Professor Cheryl Hanna says Entergy could have a strong case against the legislature. That’s because Vermont is the only state whose lawmakers have given themselves the authority to weigh in on this debate. Entergy could argue in court that a political body does not have the scientific background or expertise to make such a decision, says Hanna.

Gov. Jim Douglas has been making similar arguments for months: The legislature should let the “experts” decide Yankee’s case.

Entergy’s legal outcome would largely depend on who first presides over the case in Vermont, Hanna added. Judge William Sessions has a strong record in favor of allowing states to carve out regulatory niches, but newly appointed judge Christina Reiss has no such track record. Beyond Vermont, Hanna said, it’s not clear how well Entergy would fare.

Click here to read more of Shay’s analysis. File illustration by Tim Newcomb.

This article appears in The Green Issue 2011.

Seven Days’ deputy publisher and co-owner Cathy Resmer is a writer, editor and advocate for local journalism. She works in the paper’s Burlington office and lives vicariously through the reporters while raising money to pay them. Cathy started at Seven Days as a freelance writer in 2001 and still has the Rolodex to prove it. As the paper’s first online editor, she launched Seven Days email newsletters and started the paper’s first social media accounts. Cathy has overseen Kids VT, Vermont’s...

28 replies on “Entergy Sues to Keep Vermont Yankee Open”

  1. “Regardless, it is ironic, it isn’t even surprising if you can separate your feelings long enough to consider the other view.”This from the person framing opponents of VT Yankee as “futile”. How about taking your own advice and leave analysis of “feelings” to the experts?If your philosophy is to “leave it to the experts”, why are you ragging on Sorrell? Was he not hired and paid to defend Vermont law?Also, when you say “As for post Yankee, one must assume you mean decommissioning which isn’t a concern,” are you saying the decommissioning fund is in healthy shape as-is? Are you saying Entergy has committed to paying expenses to maintain the spent-rod storage pool for the half-life of the stored waste?Just curious….

  2. “It’s ironic to see a concern over AG Sorrell’s “futile” waste of taxpayer money but no concern whatsoever over taxpayers’ burden in both ensuring compliance from VT Yankee and what lies ahead in a post-Yankee era.”Not really. On the one hand you have a millions of dollars spent defending what is believed by some to be an illegal vote by the Vermont Senate. Remember, Sorrell and his “team” have been preparing for “months” already. The other hand is that some people are perfectly fine with the NRC doing their job to ensure compliance. As for post Yankee, one must assume you mean decommissing which isn’t a concern. There are again NRC guidelines. Lets let the experts worry about the job they were hired and are paid to do. Let the Legislature do the same. Regardless, it is ironic, it isn’t even surprising if you can separate your feelings long enough to consider the other view.

  3. Entergy’s move is not surprising as Shay called out over a year ago. But the lawsuit has less to do with its declared merits than it does delay tactics. If they can punt this thing 7-8 years down the road, then that’s 7-8 years of gravy to heap onto the mashed potatoes.It’s ironic to see a concern over AG Sorrell’s “futile” waste of taxpayer money but no concern whatsoever over taxpayers’ burden in both ensuring compliance from VT Yankee and what lies ahead in a post-Yankee era.

  4. “Sorrell is itching for this. Another chance to spend millions of tax dollars and get his face time in front of the SCOTUS. The man has a bigger agenda the State’s Attorney General. And what’s his track record in defending the VT poorly thought-out laws against attack, such as campaign finance and prohibiting use of doctors’ prescribing records?VT continues to refuse to pick its legal battles wisely, costing the VT taxpayers millions in these futile legal fights.

  5. No surprise here. It was only a matter of time before Entergy filed suit. Now we will see where it goes. It is interesting to read the opposite sides argument “entergy agreed to follow the 2002 agreement” v. “The legislature changed the rules from the 2002 agreement by pre-empting the PSB” … “The PSB is a legislative entity, ergo VY agreed to abide the legislatures decision”… Round and round in circles. And the video footage from WCAX this morning was telling, Sorrell is itching for this. Another chance to spend millions of tax dollars and get his face time in front of the SCOTUS. The man has a bigger agenda the State’s Attorney General.

  6. The story you linked has it, that’s the story I was referring to. It’s the featured story on their home page.

  8. “Rep. Tony Klein (D-East Montpelier) said he has discussed the issue with several attorneys and believes Vermont is on solid legal footing.”What the . . .? So Representative Klein’s an expert in federal pre-emption issues? Do the “several attorneys” he’s supposedly discussed the issue with have ANY experience at all in federal pre-emption issues? Has any one of them — whoever they are — actually ever litigated a federal premption case? This is something very, very few lawyers in the entire country ever deal with. Ever.I’ve discussed the issue with several barbers, and they think VY will win. I’m taking the barbers over the storefront attorneys in East Montpelier.

  9. The BFP has a good story on this – the suit that was actually filed, with current statements from the parties, and a link to the papers.

  10. [Renault has ordered that Rick’s close immediately]Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?Renault: I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here.Employee of Rick’s: [hands Renault money] Your winnings, sir.Renault: Oh, thank you, very much. Everybody out at once!http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Casablanca_(film)

Comments are closed.