Bob Stannard was standing in the Statehouse cafeteria Thursday when his phone rang. It was Gov. Peter Shumlin, calling to tell him that a federal judge had finally ruled on Vermont Yankee’s lawsuit against the state. Entergy, owner of the nuclear power plant Stannard had lobbied to shut down for five years, had won. The state had lost.
“I haven’t had a chance to read this tome,” said Stannard (pictured), glancing over the 102-page decision on his iPhone. “It appears we’ll get nothing from Entergy except radiation and spent fuel. We get stuck with their waste.”
News spread quicky through the capitol Thursday afternoon after federal Judge J. Garvan Murtha ruled that the 40-year-old nuclear reactor can remain open past 2012, and that the Vermont Legislature pre-empted federal authority when it voted to shut the plant down two years ago. Stannard fought to close the plant for five years as the lobbyist for the Vermont Citizens Action Network. He witnessed a major milestone in 2010 when the Vermont Senate, led by then-Senate President Peter Shumlin, voted 26 to 4 against letting state regulators hear the plant’s petition for a 20-year license extension.
At the time, a series of radioactive leaks and false statements by company officials had Entergy on the run. But Entergy sued the state, contending that federal agencies, not states, had sole authority to regulate nuclear power. When Thursday’s ruling arrived in favor of Vermont Yankee, Stannard and other Statehouse denizens seemed disappointed, but hardly surprised.
As many anticipated, Murtha’s ruling will send the question of relicensing the Vernon nuclear plant back to the Vermont Public Service Board, the trio of appointed utility experts who will decide whether to issue VY a “certificate of public good,” or state license to operate. The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission has already granted the plant a 20-year license extension.
Gov. Peter Shumlin, who was en route to Park City, Utah to attend the Outdoor Industry Association Retailer Winter Market, released a statement condemning the ruling and Vermont Yankee.
“I am very disappointed in today’s ruling from the federal court,” the governor’s statement said. “Entergy has not been a trustworthy partner with the state of Vermont. Vermont Yankee needed legislative approval 40 years ago. The plant received approval to operate until March, 2012. I continue to believe that it is in Vermont’s best interest to retire the plant. I will await the Attorney General’s review of the decision to comment further on whether the state will appeal.”
The union representing hundreds of Vermont Yankee employees hailed the court’s ruling, stating that it “rings for truth and justice throughout Vermont.
“The bells are ringing in Windam County tonight,” Jeffery Wimette, business manager for IBEW Local 300, said in a statement. “Hundreds of hard working, skilled and dedicated employees are now able to continue working and keep their jobs to provide for their families. The IBEW Local 300 and other highly skilled employees who work at Vermont Yankee place the highest emphasis on safety to ensure the facility is safe for all who work and live in the area. If members of the IBEW had any doubt about VT Yankee’s safety, they would be the first to blow the whistle. I congratulate the employees of VT Yankee for standing tall and keeping their faith over the past two years. The law has prevailed, not the law makers.”
In his small office, Senate President John Campbell (D-Windsor), a lawyer by day, pored over the lengthy ruling on his desktop computer. Later, Campbell and House Speaker Shap Smith spoke to reporters outside the speaker’s office. Both leaders said they were still digesting the ruling.
Smith stressed that the state will continue to retain “other areas of jurisdiction outside of the public service board” over the plant, but he and Campbell said it’s too early to say exactly how the Legislature might use regulations or taxes to affect the plant’s future.
“Any decision made in haste will not benefit the state,” Campbell said.
Smith said that he is personally disappointed in the ruling but said he has “a lot of faith in our Department of Public Service and our Public Service Board to consider the interests of Vermonters and come to a good decision.”
Do the leaders view it as a blow against states’ rights?
“There are some concerns about whether states’ rights have been constricted,” Smith offered. “I am disappointed by the decision but I appreciate the state continues to have a voice through the Public Service Board.”
Campbell went further. “I think it is a deterioration of states’ rights,” he said. “I can’t help but think there are going to be many Vermonters out there who cannot understand why their state leaders, their state legislature, is unable to voice concerns they may have.”
Asked whether he thought the state should appeal the ruling, Smith said he would leave that to the governor’s staff and the attorney general’s office.
State Rep. Tony Klein (D-East Montpelier), a Vermont Yankee critic who chairs the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, called the ruling a “clear example of the power that corporate America has over the people of this country.
“It’s a sad day for state’s rights and a sad day for America,” Klein said. “This is almost like corporate personhood. They tell you you have the right to give birth to a plant in your state. The state legislature has to give permission for a plant to be built. But now it seems they are closing down any avenue for the end of the life of that plant, even when its contract period expires.”
Click here to download the ruling.
This article appears in The Health & Fitness Issue 2012.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
So tell us a little bit about yourself, Sutton_Hoo. What kind of name is that? What do you do for a living? Where do you live? Are you a flack for Entergy hiding behind an alias and carrying their water here on this blog?
You failed to respond to my comments about the CVA and your misleading statements, but then again, I have come to expect this from people like yourself who feel as though they have to hide from the rest of us and take shots from the shadows.
Sorry to disappoint you, my friend, but I do have a pretty good handle on this issue, and whether you agree with that or not I could care less. Go look at the facts and you will come to see that it has been Entergy that has tried everything possible to distance itself from this plant and the liability that it holds.
As for investing any more time in you, I don’t believe that there’s any return in it, so I wish you well.
I guess what you’re saying is, you were simply wrong about the revenue-sharing agreement not continuing after 2012? As a lobbyist, why should legislators pay attention to what you say, since you speak with lack of knowledge of, or disregard for, the facts.
And you say, “Entergy has a history of not honoring agreements.” The shoe is on the other foot. It is the State of Vermont that has such a history.
Entergy is not going to continue to voluntarily contribute to the CEDF.
Entergy has a history of not honoring agreements. We should not expect them to honor any revenue sharing agreement(s). Note that currently the utilities have been forced to sue Entergy to get them to honor their commitments after Entergy allow its cooling towers to collapse and couldn’t fulfill their power obligations. That should tell you something (should you care to hear it).
I suggest you read the CVA report. Had you done so you would know that the report concluded that the plant could operate safely if it addressed 87 points of concern raised by the panel. There points have not all been addressed and if history is any indicator they most likely will not be.
Yes, I’m a paid lobbyist. So what? Perhaps you would like to share with us your real name and what you do. Having said that I don’t particularly care. It’s Sunday. I’m going to go watch the playoffs. You have fun Sutton_Hoo-ever-you-are.
@ Stannard:
1. Wow, for someone who makes his living attempting to influence legislators about Vermont Yankee, it’s amazing how much you just don’t know. According to the court decision that just came out, the revenue sharing deal with Vermont utilities DOES continue after 2012 if the plant is relicensed.
Also, there’s no reason to believe that the Clean Energy Development Fund couldn’t have continued also, if Vermont from the beginning had taken a friendly, negotiation approach with VY rather than a hostile, persecution approach of “we will shut you down at all costs.”
2. You say, “We will also get the benefit of wondering and waiting for the next
debacle at this plant and hope and pray that it can operate safely under
the watchful eye of a corporation that cares for only one thing; money.”
Gee, I guess you forgot that less than two years ago, Shumlin’s blue ribbon independent safety commission, which he staffed with his pal Arnie Gunderson in the expectation of getting a pre-determined outcome that the plant wasn’t safe, actually found that the plant was being operated safely and reliably, and could continue to do so into the future. Yes, we all know that Shumlin then ignored his own commission’s findings in his zeal to shut down VY because it isn’t “safe” or “reliable.”
And why are you criticizing Entergy for wanting to make money? Are you lobbying against VY for free? No, you’re getting paid to do it.
@ Greenberg: Aren’t you the guy who insisted over and over that no judge could ever possibly rule in VY’s favor in this lawsuit? Why should anyone take you as a credible source in saying that VY didn’t offer the Vt. utilities a good power deal? The court’s opinion seems to think they did make a very good offer in February of 2010. There are many possible reasons why no deal was reached.
To Sutton_Hoo: You do realize, of course, that after March 21 of this year the relationship with VY comes to end, even if the plant should continue to operate. The revenue sharing, money for the Clean Energy Fund is over. You are correct that they will still pay property tax, but what they are paying is much less than the true value of the plant.
No, we would not be receiving electricity from them no matter what happened in court. The contracts with VY expire on this day and Entergy had no desire to sell power to Vermont. The utilities went out and found more power at less than what VY was offering.
In exchange for a few jobs we will get the benefit of hosting a high-level, nuclear waste dump; something that no Vermonter ever bargained for. We will also get the benefit of wondering and waiting for the next debacle at this plant and hope and pray that it can operate safely under the watchful eye of a corporation that cares for only one thing; money.
WHen this plant is no longer economically viable, which may come sooner than we think if they are forced to implement upgrades as a result of Fukushima, you can rest assured those good jobs to which you refer will be gone. The employees, who have been used as pawns by Entergy, will be thrown under the bus.
Sutton_Hoo writes: “Oh, and we would have had their electricity, too, if Vermont hadn’t
foolishly gambled on trying to put VY out of business rather than
negotiating with it.”
Vermont’s utilities spent over two years trying to negotiate a deal with Entergy. The best deal on offer was for 115MW of power at a price beginning at 6.1 cents and it was predicated on the utilities relinquishing part of their share of any excess revenues from VY AND on the Enexus deal moving forward.
Instead, the utilities replaced the power with electricity from Seabrook and other sources, all at considerably less than $61 per MW.
Tell that to the hundreds of well-paid workers who just had their jobs spared. Tell it to the Brattleboro area Chamber of Commerce where all those workers buy homes and cars and meals and other things. Tell it to all the businesses that supply goods and services to VY. Seems like a very bright day to me.
I have to agree it was a dark day for Vermonters.
However correct you may be today, it is questionable logic to not take into consideration exactly where the money is going to come from to clean up the mess, hopefully not on the scale of Japan or fracking level, that the next generation is going to be forced to deal with. The electricity is an issue that stands on its own…. not unlike the Conn river dams.
The issue of having complete control on the front end, but absolutely NONE on the back end – in the world of state’s rights- shows no logic at all.
Stannard: “It appears we’ll get nothing from Entergy except radiation and spent fuel. We get stuck with their waste.”
No, we get jobs, and corporate tax revenues, and property tax revenues, and revenue-sharing, and $ for the Clean Energy Development Fund, and the $ that VY spends on local vendors, and all the other money that VY pumps into the community, plus income and property tax revenues from all those employees, plus the $ that all those employees spend in the community.
Oh, and we would have had their electricity, too, if Vermont hadn’t foolishly gambled on trying to put VY out of business rather than negotiating with it. A gamble that has now been lost. Now we get to host the facility, but not get any of the electricity. Oh, except for the electricity we’ll be buying from them indirectly via the grid on the spot market, at higher prices. Congratulations.
indirectly via the grid on the spot market, at higher prices. Congratulations.
Oh, but I guess Stannard wins, though, since he got paid to lobby the legislature to make the foolish decision it made. Poor us, but lucky him.