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”

  2. “3. Shumdog Millionaire comes out of this smelling sweet, for he fought the good fight, energizing the base, against Entergy Louisiana, probably knowing how it would play out.”ONLY if Vermonters decide they don’t really care about the millions of taxpayer dollars that will be wasted on losing “the good fight.” I will not be one of them.

  3. We have been predicting for years. Please read this March Hum report.NOSTRADAMUS PREDICTED ENTERGY LA/VERMONT YANKEE WOULD CONTINUE AFTER 2012We bet Nosty will predict correctly. Here’s what will most likely happen.1. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will give thumbs up to E-LA/VY, ‘cuz that’s what they do with nuke plants ready for relicensure – 63 times in a row, to be exact.2. The feds will then step out of the way, letting Peter (Shumdog Millionaire) Shumlin, the Vermont Legislature, and E-LA duke it out, probably in court.Even if Vermont wins litigation, it will have taken years and during that time E-LA will have produced and sold mucho power, because they have the license, willing purchasers, and millions of bucks for more than one appeal. One official even predicts that the legal process will take up to half of time of the renewed license period.If Vermont loses, there’s an appeal, and E-LA cruises to victory, making good revenue and avoiding protesters, living in LA. Louisiana, that is.3. Shumdog Millionaire comes out of this smelling sweet, for he fought the good fight, energizing the base, against Entergy Louisiana, probably knowing how it would play out.

  4. “If Entergy was so concerned about the 2006 law change, why did they wait 6 years to file their lawsuit?”In addition to answering your own question with your next sentence (i.e., there was no actual harm from the 2006 law until the Senate actually used its power under the law by voting against VY last year, so why sue), I guess you haven’t read what Entergy has been saying over the last day or two: despite the law, they’ve been trying to negotiate with the state. Seems pretty reasonable to me. If they had sued any sooner, they’d be accused of not trying to negotiate first.

  5. “If Entergy was so concerned about the 2006 law change, why did they wait 6 years to file their lawsuit? They’ve technically experienced no material loss until their license is officially denied by VT.”You’ve mostly answered your own question – there was no point until it became obvious that it was going to pose a problem for them. Lawsuits cost money. They are also saying that their inability to sell the plant was in part due to the legislature’s vote and the Governor’s claim that he can withhold their license.I still haven’t seen Vermont’s defense to this suit clearly articulated. Entergy agreed to be subject to PSB approval, Vermont’s position seems to be “uh, we really meant the legislature.”

  6. “You seem to recommend trusting the NRC entirely, “As a taxpayer I pay them to do a job. I think I should let them do it. Otherwise, lets fold up shop and do something else. It is entirely foolish to pay people to do a job and then dismiss the job they are doing… I don’t second guess Sorrell for doing his job? I second guess his motives, but not his decision. He has a job let him do it. Moreover, what exactly does the NRC reliciensing record have to do with their trustworthiness? Since there have been plants decommissioned one would logically conclude that unsafe plants are decomissioned and the safe plants are put up for renewal? Considering the lengthy and costly process it wouldn’t make good business sense to try and relicense a decript plant. Thats’ probably why some plants are simply decomissioned on their own. It doesn’t mean that you can’t trust the NRC or their review process. Factually, the NRC has never relicensed a plant that went on to have a catastrophic failure. I’d say their track record indicates you can trust them.

  7. About Sorrell acting “excited” about this Entergy lawsuit, it sounds like one (two?) person’s perception(s). If he had not been preparing, would he then be considered to be too dismissive, cozy with Entergy (not unlike the Tom Salmon criticism), or unqualified to hold the office?I’m not a big Sorrell fan, but I don’t doubt his credentials even despite his losing record.Statements like “the [decommissioning] fund is a political stunt” are at best a fraction of the truth. You seem to recommend trusting the NRC entirely, despite the fact they have never contended a nuke plant decision and despite a slew of articles highlighting their close relationship with industry operators. You’re welcome to roll your dice how you want, but some of us have lost patience with Entergy’s – and the NRC’s – tactics.If Entergy was so concerned about the 2006 law change, why did they wait 6 years to file their lawsuit? They’ve technically experienced no material loss until their license is officially denied by VT.

  8. “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?”I’ll repeat, the AG’s office seems to pick and choose what state laws and policies it chooses to defend. Further, your question seems to imply that Sorrell is an expert, like the PSB. He is a politican. Big difference. Lastly, I think Jcarter’s point is well-taken. If Mr. Sorrell is going to defend the State Senate’s decision to deprive the PSB of its decision-making authority over VY, then so be it. But why does he have to act so darn excited about it? This isn’t a TV reality show.

  10. Regarding Sorrell, I did not rag on Sorrell for defending state law. My comment was directed at his over exuberance at the prospect. He is clearly itching for this fight. As Attorney General it is his duty to defend the states interest, if he believes in this then so be it. He should also be doing so from the viewpoint of Vt’s interest and not political beliefs. One doesn’t typcially get overly excited about things they are doing on the behalf of others. For Sorrell, this is another 15min of fame in the limelight, not about protecting the welfare of this state. Re: Decommissioning No that’s not what I am saying at all. I said decomissioning is not a concern. See, I didn’t say anything to the effect of “As-is” or currently. Mainly because the fund is a political stunt. The NRC oversee’s decommissioning, they have sole authority to determine what decommissioning is. They also require Entergy-Yankee to decommission the plant as they deem. You will note I specifically didn’t mention cost. Because it doesn’t play a role. The NRC will determine when decommissioning has occurred to the extent necessary and that will be regardless of cost and independent of the amount in the fund. FYI, I don’t frame opponenets as futile. I submit they are typically overly idealistic and frequently ignore the facts that don’t agree with their predetermined stance. On the other hand I know what I believe, and I know many of the arguments of the opposite side. Some I don’t believe apply, some worry me with regards to VY continuing their operation, and some I recognize as political fodder. I also recognize that simply because the legislature/Congress passes a bill which is signed into law does not necessarily make it legal. Just because the Legislature decided to grant themselves this power does not mean they legally have that power. We will soon find out one way or the other.

Comments are closed.