Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

VT Legislature Votes to End Nuke Plant, But Company Runs Crying to the Feds

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-09-11 02:37 PM
Original message
VT Legislature Votes to End Nuke Plant, But Company Runs Crying to the Feds
from OtherWords:




By Jim Hightower


The nuclear power boys are weaseling again, this time in Vermont.

Entergy Corporation, an electric utility giant based in New Orleans, owns the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, which is nearing the end of its 40-year license to operate.

No problem, here's a 20-year extension of your license, said the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (a notorious industry lapdog). But, wait, said Vermont officials. Entergy signed an agreement with us to seek state approval for continuing to operate the 40-year old reactor--and our legislature has decided, in a word, "no."

So the corporation has gone running to federal court to weasel out of its state agreement, arguing that federal authority takes precedent over local on nuclear matters. Entergy insists that decisions made by Vermont's legislature are "political," whereas the NRC decision to extend the license is made by "experts." Besides, says an Entergy executive, Vermont Yankee has gotten good safety and performance ratings from an industry group. So trust us, says Entergy. .............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.otherwords.org/articles/entergy_goes_nuclear_over_vermonts_decision



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-09-11 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. The only real question is whether a state has the right to regulate that which the Fed already does.
I can't see how the answer could be "no", but I suppose we'll find out soon enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-09-11 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Like how Arizona is not allowed to enfore immigration laws
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-09-11 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I suppose that's true, but there are differences.
Even if AZ eventually loses, local governments have always had permitting/zoning/etc powers within their jurisdictions. It's possible that AZ can't step on federal toes re: immigration, but VT can still determine whether or not to allow a nuclear plant to stay open.

And even if they lost, their taxing power probably trumps anything VT Yankee can do. If a court rules with the power company that it can stay open, the state can always impose a new tax on all nuclear power that makes it impossible to operate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-09-11 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. No, it's also that an agreement was signed by the company to allow the state a say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
plumbob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-09-11 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
3. The sooner all nuclear facilities are shut down, the better.
Filthy, antique technology with lethal permanent waste as a side effect.

What's to like?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
david_vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-09-11 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
6. What's really going on here --
is that Entergy wants more time to find a buyer for VT Yankee. The plant is up for sale and the LAST thing Entergy wants is to get stuck with the bill for shutting it down. They only want the profit coming in and don't want any of the responsibility that they AGREED TO UNDERTAKE. So they want to weasel out of a contract, walk away with all the money, and say to Vermonters (and the many people in NH also affected): So long, suckers! Or, alternative scenario: find a buyer for the plant and walk away, telling that outfit: It's your problem now, suckers!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-09-11 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. You think they think there's a buyer who will do nothing but shut it down?
And contract for sale would require that the plant be approved to remain open as a condition of the purchase.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-09-11 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
8. Entergy wants to dump costs on VT taxpayers, what part of the word NO do they not understand? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-09-11 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
9. They signed an agreement.
Edited on Mon May-09-11 03:24 PM by drm604
It doesn't matter if the feds have authority on nuclear matters. It doesn't matter if the legislature is acting politically. They signed a freaking contract, that's what matters. Their lawyers should know that.

Of course the truth is that their lawyers do know that and they're just trying to come up with any bullcrap argument they can to try and get out of a signed contract.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-09-11 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Bill Sorrell, our AG will hammer at that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nykym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-09-11 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
11. Rezone the land
the plant is on to prohibit the continued use a a power plant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-09-11 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Nah... That could be a "taking" that obligates the state to pay them.
If the existing law can't win the day, then tax 'em out of town.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-09-11 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
13. What will happen if the plant is forced offline?
Is there enough power available for VT utilities to buy to keep the lights on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-11 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Oh course. But how much will it cost?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC