Can't trust VT
Posted in the Brattleboro Forum
#1 Apr 16, 2014
The PSB chose to forget this part of the history.
What the PSB mentioned
Let's look at page 28-29 of the ruling. This is extracted from the rulings history-chronology which is a background to this order. I will summarize a few items, quote a few items (in italics). You can read the rest if you follow the link to the ruling.
Item 6: 2002, Board approves sale of plant to Entergy
Items 7 and 8: 2006, Board approves construction of Dry Cask Storage and Power Uprate
Item 9: 2011, Entergy receives a license extension from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
10. On March 3, 2008, Entergy VY filed a petition with the Board seeking authority to continue operation of the VY Station for an additional 20 years through March 21, 2032. Docket 7440, Petition of 3/3/08 at 2.55
11. On January 19, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Vermont issued a decision holding that provisions of Act 160, codified at 30 V.S.A.§ 248(e)(2), were preempted by the federal Atomic Energy Act, and enjoined the enforcement of these provisions. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC v. Shumlin, 838 F. Supp. 2d 183, 243 (D. Vt. 2012),
What the PSB forgot to mention
Did you notice anything missing? The legislature passed Act 160 in 2006 requiring the legislature to allow the PSB to issue a CPG. The Board didn't mention that.
Act 160 was a clear change to the contract that Entergy signed when they bought the plant. That contract said that the PSB had to consider whether the plant deserved a CPG. The original contract said nothing about the legislature. For information on this, I recommend John McClaughry's post: Can Entergy Trust the State?
The legislature took over the decision about issuing a CPG to the plant (by passing Act 160 in 2006). The legislature discussed, at great length, the plant's nuclear safety. However, nuclear safety is a matter of federal jurisdiction, and the legislature knew this. The legislature used what Cavan Stone calls the Control-H defense. Basically, the legislature decided: "Let's use another word for safety." We will hit Control-H. We will change the word. See Cavan Stone's guest post The State and the Control-H Defense.
Having attempted to use other words for "safety," the Senate voted to close the plant down. In 2010, the legislature held a vote denying a CPG to the plant.
Entergy then sued the state, because the legislature had acted on the basis of nuclear safety. Nuclear safety is a federal prerogative. Entergy won that lawsuit. The state appealed, and Entergy won that appeal. This was embarrassing for the legislature, and maybe embarrassing for the PSB.
What the PSB was embarrassed to mention
Well, this is my opinion. I can read what the PSB wrote, but why they wrote it is forever a
Governor Peter Shumlin
Led the Senate to vote against VY
(before he was Governor)
mystery. Still, I have my opinions.
Neither the 2006 law nor the 2010 vote are mentioned in the PSB history. Why not? Is it because these show that the state of Vermont was not being a "fair partner"? Is it perhaps because the legislature took the PSB's power away from it. The legislature said: "You can't release your findings, PSB, unless we legislators allow you to do so." To write about this, the PSB would have to admit another example of being powerless. Was that the reason they didn't mention the vote? Or was it that Entergy won the lawsuits, hands-down, and the PSB is basically lawyers who ended up on the wrong side?
Was the PSB just plain embarrassed at the whole history?
Who knows? As I say, the PSB didn't write this opinion under an oath to tell the whole truth, so they wrote what they wanted to write. They left out the part of the history that most Vermonters would mention if asked about the history of Vermont Yankee.
I thought I would mention that history
#2 Apr 16, 2014
There are as many views and stories than hills of Vermont. It depend who's got the tallest soap box to spread their manure while you may be up wind many are down stream. Stop believing in the natural smell of Vt.
#3 Apr 18, 2014
The idea that VY is leaving Vermont for economic reasons only is also a myth. As the Entergy employee form New Orleans said: We were going to close somewhere so why not close the plant where you aren't wanted.
#4 Apr 19, 2014
-yup, VY is Really closing cuza the damn anti-nuke hippies, right?
Which only strengthens our resolve to not stop here and continue the fight to....
Shut Em ALL Down!!!!
. BTW- it's a real site about the ongoing radtastic human species-threatening mess of Fukushima, I just can't link to it here cuza how Topix is programmed to perceive a cuss word in the link!
#5 Apr 19, 2014
And VY is making the most income of any plant in the fleet...
#6 Apr 19, 2014
MIKE you must mean "as any Port in their folder" since they don't set sail on the Binary Coast.
Add your comments below
|Jude Fitzgerald faces charges||Fri||joe||3|
|Mother, two daughters, die in Wardsboro (Apr '08)||Apr 7||kjc10||20|
|Man accuses judge of extortion, theft (Apr '09)||Mar '17||DEPUTY DOG||34|
|Two arraigned in I-91 heroin bust (Oct '14)||Mar '17||DEPUTY DOG||19|
|Did Anyone Get Kilt In Your Flood (Aug '11)||Mar '17||Redneck||6|
|Obama's Top Ten Lies Last Night/ Clinton's Crim... (Jan '16)||Feb '17||Long Island Liberal||7|
Find what you want!
Search Brattleboro Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC