Sanders on Vermont Yankee Ruling: "Wrong and Ripe for Appeal"

[xchrom]

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=A223D432-2B7C-4B85-843D-4EABA313806D

On Thursday a federal judge ruled that Vermont Yankee may continue to operate despite state efforts to close the 40-year-old reactor. "The court Thursday 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," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.

"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."

[FBaggins]

1. Doesn't make any sense.

Don't get me wrong... I think the state made the wrong decision. But it's their decision to make.

[wtmusic]

2. Read the judge's ruling

It appears to be solely on legal grounds, with the gist being that feds have final say over nuclear safety matters - the State of Vermont can't create legislation usurping that power.

[FBaggins]

4. Oh I know what it says... It just doesn't make sense to me.

The federal govt can say "if you're going to have a reactor it must meet our standards" - but a state should have control over whether or not they want reactors at all. (Not back out of prior decisions after billions are committed, but certainly at the end of a license period)

Again, the decision that the state makes isn't necessarily the right one, but the federal govt doesn't get to trump it just because it's wrong.

[wtmusic]

5. It's a little bit like letting the people who live next to an airport close the airport

or citizens decide that cars will drive on the left side of the street in their community.

VY sells almost half its power to other states so it's an interstate commerce issue, and Vermont is not legally allowed (or qualified) to make a finding of safety/danger (VT state legislator: "...if the federal government or Entergy doesn’t protect it, we’re going to have to do it because we are not going to let our citizens . . . blow up”).

The only reason VT could deny a license renewal would be on non-safety related grounds, and VY has been a reliable provider of cheap energy for 40 years. Not much of a leg to stand on.

[PamW]

6. Actually the Feds CAN trump.

Last edited Sat Jan 21, 2012, 05:59 PM - Edit history (1)

The federal govt can say "if you're going to have a reactor it must meet our standards" - but a state should have control over whether or not they want reactors at all. (Not back out of prior decisions after billions are committed, but certainly at the end of a license period)

Again, the decision that the state makes isn't necessarily the right one, but the federal govt doesn't get to trump it just because it's wrong.
================================================

First, Vermont AGREED to having Vermont Yankee back in the late '60s. The initial agreement on Vermont Yankee that Vermont agreed to INCLUDED the option for a license renewal. So legally, Vermont agreed to the possible extension of the license back in the '60s when it agreed to the building of Vermont Yankee in the first place.

The US Supreme Court in the PG&E case (461 US 190 - 1983) stated that the States have the right to say whether they want a plant BEFORE it is built. However, afterwards, the discretion is TOTALLY with the NRC in terms of operation and license renewal.

PamW

[Dead_Parrot]

3. Sanders is stretching things a little...

"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." says he. But, act 160 - which moves the decision from the PSB to the state legislature - didn't exist at the time.

Now, it maybe that VY's time has come - It's getting on a bit and has hardly been trouble free of late - but I think making it a purely political decision is a bad idea.

[PamW]

7. Federal law trumps.

"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." says he. But, act 160 - which moves the decision from the PSB to the state legislature - didn't exist at the time.
=======================

Federal law trumps Vermont. It doesn't matter AT ALL what Entergy agreed to.

This is a classic case handled by the Courts. Suppose a couple is getting married, and they are going to have a "pre-nup" agreenment.

Suppose the husband lists as one of the terms of the prenup that the bride waives any right to divorce him in the future. The bride agrees. Years later, the wife wants to divorce the husband, but he says she can't because she agreed not to in the pre-nup.

The Courts hold that the terms of the pre-nup are not enforcable because the right of the wife to divorce is granted by LAW. The State's marriage laws give the right to file for divorce to the wife, and nobody, not even the wife; can waive that right in a side agreement.

Likewise, Vermont had NO RIGHT to require Entergy to agree to anything when it purchased Vermont Yankee. The fact that Entergy did agree is IMMATERIAL. Federal LAW determines who can buy / build and operate a nuclear power plant and NOT the State.

Some may cry, "what happened to State's rights"? They better look at the 10th Amendment again. The State get rights ONLY when the Constitution hasn't given the right to the Federal Government. In this case, the Supreme Court has ruled that the regulation of nuclear power by the Federal Gov't is GRANTED by the Constitution to Congress. Then by Article 6 Section 2 of the US Constitution; called the "Supremacy Clause", federal law trumps state law if the federal government has legitimately been given the power to enact the federal law. In the case of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 ( which created NRC to assume the AEC's regulation function ); those are legitimate powers granted Congress under the Constitution's Commerce Clause, and hence they trump any State law.

PamW