Authored by: cgrotke on Thursday, January 19 2012 @ 09:18 PM GMT+4

We'll see:

He says: "I am very disappointed in today’s ruling from
the
federal court. 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."

Authored by: cgrotke on Thursday, January 19 2012 @ 09:19 PM GMT+4

Might be your federal taxes, though:

"WASHINGTON, Jan. 19 - Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
issued the flowing statement after a federal judge ruled
today that Vermont Yankee may continue to operate
despite state efforts to close the 40-year-old reactor:
"The court today has made a decision that is, in my view,
wrong on the merits and ripe for appeal. I believe the law
is very clear, and that states have the right to reject
nuclear power for economic and other non-safety reasons.
"It is inconceivable to me that Entergy can force Vermont
to allow continued operation of Vermont Yankee, an aging
and problem-plagued nuclear plant, when the people of
Vermont want to move aggressively to energy efficiency
and sustainable energy.

"Vermont's laws, which Entergy agreed to abide by when it
bought Vermont Yankee, require that Entergy receive a
new certificate of public good in order to operate beyond
March of 2012. In a very strong 26-4 bipartisan vote, the
Vermont Senate voted against allowing Vermont Yankee to
receive that certificate. They believed, and I believe, that
the continuation of Vermont Yankee in our state is not in
the best interest of Vermont.

Allowing Entergy to evade laws they agreed to abide by
sets a horrendous precedent which should not be allowed
to stand. The state of Vermont and other states must have
the right to determine their own energy future.""

Authored by: cgrotke on Thursday, January 19 2012 @ 09:21 PM GMT+4

And, full copy of the decision is here:

http://7d.blogs.com/files/11cv99.pdf

courtesy of 7 Days.

Authored by: Jeezum Crow on Thursday, January 19 2012 @ 11:25 PM GMT+4

Too few people realize it, but this is a good day for Vermont.

Authored by: pleasant on Friday, January 20 2012 @ 04:17 PM GMT+4

At last, a voice of reason.

Authored by: shaw on Friday, January 20 2012 @ 12:33 AM GMT+4

What a TERRIBLE day for Vermont! The message here is that
the state, and its people, do not have a say on what can and
cannot operate in the state.

To say that nuclear power plant is unstable is an
understatement.

Authored by: H on Friday, January 20 2012 @ 03:04 AM GMT+4

From the opinion:
Page 14: "The Committee Chair responded: “Okay, let’s find another word for safety.”
Page 19: "...(excerpting other safety-related statements from the Senate debate and committee
hearings, too voluminous to recount here)"
Page 44: "On March 25, the director of Public Advocacy for DPS presented “Preemption from
50,000 Feet” to the Committee. She noted
the legislators should “be careful with what you’re talking about in this room. Be careful about
the record you’re making and later on you’ll see why I think that’s actually important.” She continued, “it’s not to say you can’t talk about things, just be
aware of language, that reliability is something to talk about where maybe safety is not.” In April, after this testimony, a representative referred to the
“comprehensive vertical audit” bill stating, “I think we were doing that in an effort to avoid safety language.”
If you are disappointed in this ruling perhaps you should take it up with your elected representatives. They may have some explaining to do.

Authored by: annikee on Friday, January 20 2012 @ 03:05 AM GMT+4

Just typical. I don't know how I'll ever manage a goose step.

---
veritas fortis vocat

Authored by: Donnie on Friday, January 20 2012 @ 03:39 AM GMT+4

If you take the time to look at the full ruling document above, and pay attention to the conclusions of law beginning on page 99, the ruling seems solid and likely will be upheld on appeal if the Ag's office decides to follow the legislature and the governor over the cliff on this one. I agree that in the end this is a good decision for the state,the taxpayers, the rate payers and for the 500 plus employees of the plant. To say that the plant is unstable is just plain foolish. It has been proven time and time again that the plant is quite stable. I have full confidence in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that they would not allow an unstable plant to operate. Has it had maintenance issues? Of course. Far fewer than your motor vehicle after 30-years. And nuclear power is far cleaner and causes less harm than fossil fuel power plants. I sat through every hour of the original hearings on Vt. Yankee and followed its operation and issues ever since. I am very satisfied that I am safe living within the 5-mile radius of the plant.

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Friday, January 20 2012 @ 04:08 AM GMT+4

*** It has been proven time and time again that the plant is quite
stable. ***
It's completely stable in between the frequent leaks, breaks, and
equipment failures.

Hopefully the decision will be overturned on appeal, but if not, maybe
the legislature will pass that special Vermont Yankee tax they were
talking about a few years ago. If you an't beat 'em, tax 'em.

---
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain

Authored by: tomaidh on Friday, January 20 2012 @ 12:21 PM GMT+4

<<< It has been proven time and time again that the plant is quite stable. I have full confidence in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that they would not allow an unstable plant to operate. >>>
On April 10, 2011, everyone thought the Fukushima Daichi Nuclear Power Plant was “stable”.
On April 20, 2011, the Japanese authorities declared the 20 km evacuation zone a no-go area which may only be entered under government supervision.
The Brattleboro town offices are 9.6 km from the Yankee reactor.
But "Safety" is off the table!

Authored by: gmoreau on Friday, January 20 2012 @ 12:58 PM GMT+4

If you take the time to look at the full ruling document
above, and pay attention to the conclusions of law
beginning on page 99, the ruling seems solid and likely will
be upheld on appeal if the Ag's office decides to follow the
legislature and the governor over the cliff on this one. I
agree that in the end this is a good decision for the
state,the taxpayers, the rate payers and for the 500 plus
employees of the plant. To say that the plant is unstable is
just plain foolish. It has been proven time and time again
that the plant is quite stable. I have full confidence in the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission that they would not allow
an unstable plant to operate. Has it had maintenance
issues? Of course. Far fewer than your motor vehicle after
30-years. And nuclear power is far cleaner and causes less
harm than fossil fuel power plants. I sat through every hour
of the original hearings on Vt. Yankee and followed its
operation and issues ever since. I am very satisfied that I
am safe living within the 5-mile radius of the plant.

"Has it had maintenance issues? Of course."

Leaks. Collapses. Lies by its owners. Um, yeah, and these
are acceptable somehow?

"Far fewer than your motor vehicle after 30-years"

This is, at best, specious reasoning. This isn't a car, we're
talking about, it's a factory that creates energy and
horrendously toxic byproducts that it stores on site. Far
more, nuclear waste is stored there, in fact, than the ill-
fated Fukushima reactor. And that's a good idea somehow?
You call other people "plain foolish"? Wow. Talk about
cognitive dissonance.

"I have full confidence in the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission that they would not allow an unstable plant to
operate."

That means nothing. They are a rubber stamping shill for
the nuclear power industry and have very little real interest
in doing the right thing--proven by the fact that they've
used bureaucratic nonsense to protect the industry and
place its interests over peoples' safety. They have never
turned down a request for a license.

I have to reconsider living in Brattleboro. Once the housing
market turns around, I think we'll pull up stakes and head
elsewhere...

Sad day for Vermont, indeed.

Authored by: H on Friday, January 20 2012 @ 01:24 PM GMT+4

"They are rubber stamping shill..." May I ask who "they" is? What made this opinion a slam dunk was the incompetence of legislative leadership and the ignorance of individual legislators. Words matter! In this case it is central.
So, in this case, who is "they". It is folks like Jeanette, Sarah, Mollie, David, Carolyn, Mike M + O and last but hardly least, Pro Tem at the time, Peter. To blame corporate america, Attorney Sullivan for kicking the state's ass, the NRC and so forth simply ignores the facts that precipitated the arguements in this case.
You may be disappointed by the outcome of this case, but I would direct my disappointment at your elected representatives who put the state in this position.

Authored by: pleasant on Friday, January 20 2012 @ 04:19 PM GMT+4

I am satisfied that I am safe not only living in a 5 miles radius of the plant, but also working in a <1 mile radius of the plant.

Authored by: NorahCook on Friday, January 20 2012 @ 06:24 PM GMT+4

You offer self-satisfaction as a reason for thousands and possibly millions of fellow citizens to continue to be exposed to the risks of an aging, crumbling, leaking plant that has (how many tons?) of nuclear waste that must, must, MUST be cooled for (how many thousands of years?) ... gee, it's just grand that you like living near the plant, but I suspect you are ignorant of the demands on our civilization to be stable enough, consistent enough, and intelligent enough to handle these terribly dangerous fuels.

Authored by: tomaidh on Friday, January 20 2012 @ 07:02 PM GMT+4

Strategies Against Indian Point By Remy Chevalier January 19, 2012
Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/Strategies-Against-Indian-by-Remy-Chevalier-120117-550.html

We have common cause. Both IP & Yankee are owned by Entergy.

While Yankee threatens far fewer people, They both represent unacceptable risks!

Authored by: spinoza on Friday, January 20 2012 @ 07:29 PM GMT+4

This week Frontline aired an episode looking at Fukushima,
and bracketing the disaster in the light of Indian Point's
legacy.

It's probably online at PBS, I recommend it highly. The
most poignant parts for me were the interviews with
Fukushima residents, who were still wrapping their heads
around the fact that despite generations dwelling in a place
they knew as home, people will NEVER be living there
again.

Authored by: AirBrattleboro on Friday, January 20 2012 @ 07:37 PM GMT+4

Can I just point out........

Regardless of how one feels about nuclear power or Vermont Yankee, the language of this original post is intentionally provocative and insulting, including a 5th grade insult that renames (and misspells) the Governor's name. I can't imagine how a healthy conversation can follow from that. "Read it and weep" is not citizen journalism by any stretch of the imagination. It is a jab in the eye and nothing more, and not worthy of contributing to in substance. "Waste" and "folly"......really? When 26 out of 30 State Senators feel strongly enough, and cross political aisles to make a clear statement? That's waste? Folly?

I think I'll have my conversation about this topic elsewhere. Anyone want to start a new thread?

Just one guy's opinion.

---
**********************************************
Steve West
Host - "Live & Local"
WKVT 1490 AM
802.254.5286

Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, January 20 2012 @ 07:52 PM GMT+4

While I generally agree with your post I must say
"a 5th grade insult that renames (and misspells) the Governor's name."
causes me to ask if renaming President Obama to President Hopey McChange is somehow different. Or is it just the Governor that's out of bounds.

Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, January 20 2012 @ 07:56 PM GMT+4

Oh and just in case you're wondering I'm not defending the 5th grade insult when one renames the governor, it's the renaming of the President which I find offensive and ironic when you then complain because someone does the same to the governor over an issue you rightly are upset about. But as for the 5th grade behavior, really, you can't have it both ways, or can you?

Authored by: AirBrattleboro on Friday, January 20 2012 @ 08:15 PM GMT+4

For what it's worth, I have ceased referring to the President that way, for precisely that reason.

---
**********************************************
Steve West
Host - "Live & Local"
WKVT 1490 AM
802.254.5286

Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, January 20 2012 @ 08:42 PM GMT+4

Excellent.

Authored by: tomaidh on Friday, January 20 2012 @ 08:18 PM GMT+4

The renaming of the President by "Rethuglicans" (5th grade insult) has become some kind of a contest in sophomoric ingenuity. It is driven by racism. It plays really well south of the Mason-Dixon line. Let's hope we're above that sort of stuff.

Authored by: PutneyReject on Friday, January 20 2012 @ 08:22 PM GMT+4

Ahh Steve, ever the voice of reason.

I must have missed your stirring rebukes of the use of phrase "Neocon Taliban" or Entergy bashing on this very site. Maybe you would be so good as to find them for me?

Way to duck and run, see you in the next thread. Maybe you should have just started one instead of crying about it in this one? Or maybe mommy will make you a cup of warm milk in the mean time.

Remember, sarcasm (or states rights!) is only ok if it helps YOUR cause.

Authored by: NorahCook on Friday, January 20 2012 @ 08:38 PM GMT+4

You continue to push your agenda that you believe VY to be necessary, to be a public good, and to be safe. How can you justify your opinion that this plant should continue to run, given what happened at Fukushima?

Authored by: PutneyReject on Friday, January 20 2012 @ 08:50 PM GMT+4

Fukushima didn't change anything except public awareness and opinion.

The VY core damage accident sequences and probabilities are unchanged as far I know. Perhaps something will come out of Fukushima which dramatically changes that, but I doubt it.

VY continues to be safe enough to allowed to operate. I'm sure your definition of safe enough is different than mine but neither of out opinions actually count.

Authored by: concerned about on Friday, January 20 2012 @ 11:35 PM GMT+4

"Fukushima changed nothing" .. except, well, merely the lives, the livlihoods and the ancestral lands of many thousands of inhabitants within a 20 or 50 mile radius of the plant. They will not be able to return for decades. If ever.
So don't tell us that Fukushima changed nothing!

Even if the likelihood of a similar accident happening here might be extremely small, NO ONE can say that it absolutely cannot happen. And the consequences would be immeasurably high.

As they were in Fukushima.

Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, January 20 2012 @ 08:46 PM GMT+4

Ah Reject, no one can top you for just plain out and out no reason other than you're just a cranky old . . . . well just plain ornery old cuss. And I don't mean that in a good way. I really don't think anyone surpasses you here for just natural nastiness Reject. You take the cake, yellow or otherwise.

Authored by: PutneyReject on Friday, January 20 2012 @ 08:53 PM GMT+4

I felt Steve's piece was a condescending, hypocritical piece of tripe, so I responded in kind.

Norah seemed to ask a genuine question so I tried to give a genuine answer. Simple as that.

Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, January 20 2012 @ 11:15 PM GMT+4

Yeah I see . . . because this is so not condescending or hypocritical or a piece of tripe:
"I wonder how many more state dollars Gov. Dumlin will waste on this folly?"

As for your comment that Fukushima changed nothing but public opinion and awareness what the hdoublehockeysticks does that mean? Could you elaborate on this genuine answer of yours so it's a bit more clear?

Authored by: PutneyReject on Friday, January 20 2012 @ 11:32 PM GMT+4

From what we know about Fukushima right now, I don't think it will fundamentally change the US commercial power industry like TMI did.

There will be strengthening of station blackout rules and other insights gained (don't forget about fuel pool cooling, don't wait to vent your containment, etc.) but I just don't foresee wholesale changes in the industry like after TMI. Just my opinion.

You progressive pansies are sure a thin skinned bunch. You didn't see me cry about "goose step" now did you?

Authored by: spinoza on Friday, January 20 2012 @ 11:42 PM GMT+4

The Frontline piece highlighted that Japan has about-faced on its
nuclear ambitions. They claim there now are only six operational
plants in the country, and it is expected that all will be offline before
the year's end.

Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, January 20 2012 @ 11:52 PM GMT+4

I'm thinking the caution about Fukushima is that there is no such thing as safe nuclear power. I hope that Reject is wrong and that the result is a rethinking here also of the viability of nuclear power.

Also does anyone realize that the plant over there is still not stable? The lesson is that a failure with nuclear power can't just be fixed by hitting an off button, it's a very unsafe and unsteady way to get power. We're not done with the damages of Fukushima yet and yet some will offer that this doesn't reflect on Yankee. How foolish.

Authored by: PutneyReject on Saturday, January 21 2012 @ 12:30 AM GMT+4

Do you people even bother to read what I write before firing off a half-baked response?

I specifically stated that Fukushima changed public awareness and opinion and what do I get in response?

"So don't tell us that Fukushima changed nothing!"

"We're not done with the damages of Fukushima yet and yet some will offer that this doesn't reflect on Yankee. How foolish."

The question was asking about Fukushima and VY so that is how I answered.

Low natural gas prices and the recession halted the "nuclear renaissance" long before Fukushima. But will is stop Vogtle 3 & 4? I don't think so.

Authored by: concerned about on Saturday, January 21 2012 @ 12:49 AM GMT+4

OK PutneyReject. I apologize. I mistakenly paraphrased your comment to read "Fukuskima changed nothing", when you actually said "Fukushima didn't change anything except public awareness and opinion."

Yet the gist of my comment remains unapologetically unchanged:
Don't tell us that Fukushima didn't change anything except public awareness and opinion, because it also had immeasurable consequences to thousands of inhabitants within a 20 or 50 mile radius of the plant. Those people lost their lives, or their livelihoods and their ancestral lands, virtually never to return. They would be appalled to hear you pompously state that Fukushima didn't change anything (except public...opinion)!!

The same thing CAN happen here; no one can deny that there is a possibility. It might be a small possibility, but it does exist. That small possibility multiplied by consequences which would be huge beyond comprehension makes for an unacceptable risk equation.

Authored by: PutneyReject on Saturday, January 21 2012 @ 12:58 AM GMT+4

Jesus, of course Fukushima had terrible effect on the people living nearby but that's not the issue I was asked to comment on.

How many times do I have to repeat it. Go start a new thread to rant on.

Authored by: tiny on Saturday, January 21 2012 @ 05:37 AM GMT+4

I just don't understand , how did legistlation get put in place
that was seemly blown out of the water with no chance of
being appealed? Was it all a sham to begin with, just optics
for people to get elected? What the heck kind of case did the
Stae/AG put before the courts? I don't get it....

Authored by: H on Saturday, January 21 2012 @ 02:37 PM GMT+4

I have asked myself the same question. And the deliberate and "too numerous to count" on record discussions about nuclear "safety". The actions of the legislature simply set the table for this opinion.
As I have pointed out in a previous post, legislators were specifically advised to avoid the topic of safety. Yet that did not stop many of them.
Where was the leadership throughout this?
I keep coming back to Candidate Shumlin's meeting at Senator Mazza's with the potentates in Chittenden County where it was reported on VPR that Candidate Shumlin assured those in attendance that the plant would remain open. (Remember Jane Lindholm's frustration in trying to get a straight answer from Candidate Shumlin on VT Edition?)
When things are so completely botched by the actions of the legislature, is there any wonder that we think about other motives?

Authored by: spinoza on Saturday, January 21 2012 @ 03:24 PM GMT+4

common sense suggests- to me anyway- it's a very strange
and esoteric stricture to place on discussion and deliberation.
akin to not being able to mention the word 'money' when
talking about financial regulation.

Authored by: H on Saturday, January 21 2012 @ 05:37 PM GMT+4

Awkward to be thinking about safety, concerned about safety, perhaps even fearful for our safety, but not able to speak about safety. Yet that was a focus in the opinion. To many this does not come as a surprise...in fact, the attorney representing Entergy, hung her hat on this argument.
The outcome of this case has also got me thinking about the difference between politics and government. Perhaps we would be better served if members of the legislature focused more on the latter and not the former.

Authored by: tiny on Sunday, January 22 2012 @ 01:05 PM GMT+4

Wow, why has this thread run out of gas? Did anybody just
want to get angry at PR? The State really blew this case and
got their doors blown in. Why?

Authored by: PutneyReject on Sunday, January 22 2012 @ 01:28 PM GMT+4

The state never really had a case. It's been said here and in other analysis.

There is a lot of Sorrell bashing going on (check out GMD for some more "insightful" takes on the case) but VT wasn't going to win no matter what he did.

Where it goes from here all depends on what US Senator hopeful Dumlin thinks will help get him that seat when Leahy dies.

Authored by: tiny on Sunday, January 22 2012 @ 02:37 PM GMT+4

Well, PR, I am not surprised by your response, I am
replying just so people will not get the idea we are one
and the same, LOL!
But please, riddle me this, with groups like GMD, VDB,
fairwinds and other anti-nuke bloggers, anti-nuke groups
station throughout the state and region, the politicians
(probably the majority of the legistlation in Montplier) who
have made closing VY one of the centerpieces of their
campaign, how could they propose, lobby, and pass
legistlation that was as leaky as a wet paper bag?

There seems to be more to this total loss there not using
the word "safety" in the ruling. I don't get it, and I truly
want to hear why it went so badly for the anti-nuke folks
on this. In the past, masny years ago, they really had
their s&^t together, but this is plain amatuer hour. Sorry
for being strident but I am truly curious....

Authored by: H on Sunday, January 22 2012 @ 03:11 PM GMT+4

For all my friends who have stood sentry at the plant, conducted vigils and put thier hearts and souls into its closure, I wonder how they feel about those who represent them in Montpelier. As Bill Clinton used to say, I feel your pain.
And to follow-up a previous point, instead this thread went to Fukushima. So as I watch the games this afternoon and the Coors Light commercial comes on, I am going to be thinking....Fukushima? You want to talk about Fukushima...Don't talk to me about Fukushima!
Seriously, something went down here that simply does not add up and it concerns me alot more than just about VY.

Authored by: tomaidh on Sunday, January 22 2012 @ 07:38 PM GMT+4

I thought that seat belonged to Galbraith.

Authored by: cgrotke on Sunday, January 22 2012 @ 06:22 PM GMT+4

To H:

Regarding the talk of safety, my own view is that the
problem lies with that rule in particular. Why it was
originally designed so that you could mention anything but
safety is bizarre. It's a strange exemption for this industry
- one that has so much to do with safety.

Even VY claims safety as a reason to stay open. They can
mention it over and over and over...

If I was supplying tainted milk from my farm, the state
could (I'd hope) shut me down for endangering the lives of
consumers who bought it. If I could say, "sure, shut me
down, but you can't bring up safety to do it" it would
make it almost impossible to stop me from selling my
dangerous goods.

We don't allow fireworks in the state and regulate all sort
of other things for safety.

The technicality of mentioning or not mentioning safety is,
to me, beyond common sense and simply legalistic. Like
Citizens United. But it is the law.

The way I read the judge's determination, he was saying
"you can't shut VY down this way because the laws do not
support you. But, you do have some other ways you can
pursue."

Authored by: PutneyReject on Sunday, January 22 2012 @ 11:47 PM GMT+4

I see your point but if you go in knowing what the rules are and repeatedly and blatantly violate them, you are going to get slapped.

Authored by: H on Monday, January 23 2012 @ 11:39 AM GMT+4

Thanks Chris: There is a popular desire to close the plant, I get that. And I have little doubt that those who wish to close the plant will continue to seek a legal means to do so. That is the way it works.
While it may seem a little wacky that the state can raise issues regarding reliablity and economics, it has been clear from the get-go that they could not raise issues of safety. To ignore this and pine for state's rights simply ignores the arrogance, or perhaps ignorance, of those we have placed in the public trust. If our elected representatives did not know they were painting themselves into a corner, they should have. I have been told that those who favor the continued operation of VY in Montpelier were only too pleased to let the conversations about safety run its course. They simply stood back and enjoyed the show.
I think the folks who wish to close VY had better consider how they intend to pursue this interest without the resources of the Administration. We may be hearing that the State cannot expend any more resources on this matter..."we must move on to other matters of energy policy and pursue green alternatives"...that sort of thing.
We must continue to consider life after VY to the extent that we will not have a long term fixed contract for their electricity. They are now, in every definition of the word, a merchant plant. I am a huge proponent for green energy and looked to the plant's revenues to support development of a green energy future in Vermont. That may continue while the plant continues to operate through the Green Energy Fund. But I also looked to a favorable long term fixed contract rate to provide the ratepayer a stable and affordable price for electricity during this transition. Ratepayers...that is every working person in Vermont, that is you and me and many of our friends. Instead we will all suffer the drip, drip, drip of small rate increases over the years. Who is benefiting economically from our current green energy policy? Those who can use a tax credit, those with means, those who probably need the help the least.
I understand that a majority of folks in Windham County want the plant closed for their well being, safety and peace of mind. Someone told me a couple days ago that they simply have a problem with an energy source that needs a public evacuation plan. That makes sense to me. So I know that with this will, there will be a way. This round went to Entergy, there will, no doubt, be other rounds in this donnybrook. And with better organization and discipline the opponents of VY will probably prevail. My only advice to them is, know who your friends are!

Authored by: cgrotke on Tuesday, January 24 2012 @ 03:37 PM GMT+4

One problem, though, is Murtha was using instructions to
legislators as examples of them being concerned about
safety. That seems weak to some lawyers out there who
feel legislators were entitled to become educated about
the process before undertaking it.

I want my legislators concerned about safety, regardless
of federal laws. For them to not look out for residents
would be worse. And they did a good job of attempting the
strange dance whereby they don't mention the elephant in
the room, even while the elephant was leaking on them.

As I said before, I disagree with the underlying laws, not
so much the decision. If someone can only choose
between Coke and Pepsi, they cannot decide for Dr.
Pepper. I understand that. I think it would be bad practice
to encourage those who represent us to NOT look out for
their constituents, though.

Authored by: H on Tuesday, January 24 2012 @ 08:48 PM GMT+4

Maybe they need to be concerned and smart. In this case, isn't it about the desired result? I think we are at an impasse....friends can agree to disagree. I seem to find myself in this position all the time!

Authored by: PutneyReject on Tuesday, January 24 2012 @ 10:57 PM GMT+4

I think that the antis involved got lost in the weeds because all they could think about was shutting down VY aka the desired result. They should have spent a little more time on the process.

I don't think anyone thinks it was a smart play and even the most ardent anti-VY VT law professor wasn't keen on state's chances going in.

I think the state won't appeal and it will go to PSB where Entergy will appeal if it goes against them. And so on and so on.

All the while VY will continue to operate while it winds its way through the system.

Most importantly for Gov. Dumlin, it won't stick to him.

Authored by: H on Wednesday, January 25 2012 @ 12:12 PM GMT+4

And the Governor comes out having fought the good fight and getting the revenues from VY. So what really did go down at Sen Mazza's pow-wow last Fall?

Authored by: cbridge on Tuesday, January 24 2012 @ 12:38 PM GMT+4

Listened to the AG & a law professor who used to chair the PSB last night
regarding legal flaws in Murtha's decision. It seems there is case law, in
the form of a Supreme Court decision, on a case involving Pacific Gas &
Electric, which states that what is said during debate over proposed
legislation cannot be considered. Only the legislation, as enacted, can be
considered. That invalidates the argument that the VT legislature infringed
on the federal monopoly on safety considerations. The legislation avoided
mention of safety.

There were other interesting points made; I urge anyone who missed it &
is able to access the program via VPR's website (as I cannot) to check it
out. It's possible Murtha's ruling has more holes in it than the law it
invalidates.

Authored by: annikee on Sunday, January 29 2012 @ 02:58 AM GMT+4

Whatever the outcime. I will defend your right and eveyone else's opinon in this. We will work this out.

---
veritas fortis vocat

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Friday, February 17 2012 @ 05:40 PM GMT+4

It looks like Entergy has forced Vermont's appeal of Murtha's decision, at least according to Vermont Law School professor Pat Parenteau's analysis (click here):

Entergy’s shocking demand that the state pay $4.62 million in attorney fees and costs incurred to date (with the threat of more to come) raises the economic stakes considerably. In the face of this large potential financial liability, given the state’s strong arguments on appeal and the small incremental costs of appeal now that the record has been made, the interests of Vermont taxpayers will clearly be best served if the Attorney General decides to prosecute an appeal.

Parenteau also suggests Judge Garvin Murtha's decision was flawed, and could be reversed upon appeal. Excerpts from Parenteau's analysis:

He failed to accord proper weight to the presumption against preemption that applies in cases where there is no express preemption and no actual conflict between state and federal law, which is precisely the situation here.

Judge Murtha misreads PGE. In fact, the kind of microscopic examination of the legislative history that he embarked upon—probing the mental processes of individual legislators and piecing together snippets of testimony to fashion a composite portrait of legislative purpose—is precisely what the PGE Court warned against.

Judge Murtha applied the wrong legal standard to judge the constitutionality of Vermont’s laws. He bought Entergy’s argument that once safety entered the discussion, the burden shifted to Vermont to prove that the Legislature would have enacted these laws in the absence of safety concerns.

Judge Murtha misused the legislative history. There is a good argument that he should not have looked at the legislative history of Acts 160 and 74 at all because on their face there was no mention of radiological health and safety and no assertion of any regulatory authority over such matters. And to the extent that the term “public health” as used in the statutes is susceptible to more than one interpretation, Judge Murtha should have deferred to the state’s interpretation that it did not refer to radiation safety instead of accepting Entergy’s interpretation that it did.

Judge Murtha eviscerated the 2002 memorandum of understanding by ruling that it did not constitute a binding waiver by Entergy of its right to sue the state on the very preemption grounds raised in this case. Indeed, if the MOU wasn’t a waiver, what in the world was it?

Judge Murtha’s ruling on the dormant commerce clause is dead wrong as a matter of law.

Parenteau's comments are an interesting read for anyone who has been following this issue. Personally, I think Entergy's demand for $4.62 million is a bullying tactic. I think it would be amusing if it backfired on them.

---
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Saturday, February 18 2012 @ 10:08 PM GMT+4

http://vtdigger.org/2012/02/18/vermont-attorney-general-appeals-
federal-court-decision-favoring-entergy/

---
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain

Authored by: H on Monday, February 20 2012 @ 01:01 PM GMT+4

Wow, this Digger thread is going gangbusters. Where do some people get the time to write the long responses. Certainly a different perspective than what we see in iBratt. Thanks for the link.

To my friends who want to continue the fight to "close this leaking and aging plant" let me give you some unsolicited advice. Put your signs down, stop the randum testimony before PSB (when that starts up again), no more demonstrations at the nuke office building...if you wish to close the nuke plant, you will want to raise money to support the AG's legal fight in this appeal. You have to match dollar for dollar, and then double the resources that Entergy is going to spend. The AG needs your help. He needs to delegate this to competent and expensive legal blackbelts. Start the fund today and don't stop until you hit $20 Million.
Don't get me wrong, I support all of those who stand for an equitable tax policy, support abolishing corporations with rights of personhood, rational defense spending...but this VY thing is now very focused...it is about a day in court and only about a day in court.
Yes, it is an usual approach but there is an unwillingness for taxpayers to support this expenditure. Most Vermonters are getting weary of this issue with no appetite to spend more money.
There is no way I would support this kind of money coming out of the general fund to support the speculation that the State would prevail in an appeal.

Authored by: tiny on Monday, February 20 2012 @ 03:37 PM GMT+4

H, you have hit the nail on the head. 'nuff said.

I believe this appeal has been lodged by the State in order
to settle Entergy's demand to be reimburse the legal fees
they have incurred to date on this matter.

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Monday, February 20 2012 @ 07:23 PM GMT+4

I wondered the same - if the state was trying to gain some leverage over Entergy.

I also wondered if Entergy was trying to put pressure on the attorney general's office not to appeal the decision.


---
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Monday, February 20 2012 @ 07:03 PM GMT+4

Parenteau makes the argument that Entergy, with their demand for $4.62 million, has put the state in a position where the appeal is the fiscally prudent response, given the flaws in Murtha's decision.

---
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain

Authored by: tiny on Tuesday, February 21 2012 @ 01:17 AM GMT+4

I can't make a judgement about the flaws, I have heard
comments that go both ways, but I wonder who the State will
use as their legal team. I would think they would want to
get some real high level talent, because you know Entergy is
going to bring their A team to court. As H says, 9 old ladies
picketing the VY offices are not going to sway the judge, the
battle is going to fought in a courtroom.