Leas: Entergy’s case against Vermont is seriously flawed

"The NRC’s action came after a thorough and exhaustive five-year safety and environmental review of the plant."

Same exhaustive safety and environmental review conducted at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima no doubt.

Nuke plants commissioned for forty years are now magically commissioned for sixty years.

So the nuke energy industry has their lobbyists run to Washington to influence the people they pay off into denying Vermont their rights as a state to make their own decisions regarding public safety.

Does Vermont really want a Louisiana energy company dictating to their state the Louisiana version of the public good? Has everyone forgotten what the Louisiana version of public good is re the BP spill or other massive polluters in the Gulf like the plastics industry? Now Entergy, out of sheer greed, wants to bring Louisiana's version of "public good" to Vermont.

I like the first response to the article from Tom Buchanan:

http://vtdigger.org/2011/05/03/leas-entergys-case-against-vermont-is-seriously-flawed/#comment-12158

"Good overview. While paragraph 12 (quoted above) is the most important part of the document relevant to the approvals needed, it is supported by paragraph 16(1), which recognizes disputes will arise from time to time, and establishes a mechanism for resolving those disputes. In this case, both Entergy and the other signatories agreed that any dispute would be handled under Vermont law, by the Public Service Board.

The terms of paragraph 12 are in dispute, and Entergy should have first gone to the PSB for resolution. Indeed, the federal courts should immediately send Entergy back to the state level, and should deny the preliminary injunction because the “urgency” claimed by Entergy, was created by Entergy’s failure to pursue resolution at the state level in a timely manner.

It may be that the PSB decides that the intent of the Parties in 2002 was to recognize the potential for the kind of legislative action we see now, in which case the authority of Act 160 would stand, and the matter should be closed. Or, the PSB might decide that the Parties could not have anticipated such heavy-handed legislative action, and that paragraph 12 doesn’t apply to the situation at hand, which would then open the dispute to other legal avenues. In any event, Entergy should have begun their argument regarding state authority to grant or deny a continuing CPG at the Public Service Board, as they agreed to do in 2002. It is fully inappropriate to skip that step, and then claim that the PSB process is somehow tainted, as Entergy appears to be doing now.

The second part of the Entergy complaint revolves around the commerce clause and challenges to FERC authority, but those elements should wait until there is an actual decision from the Board. At this juncture, the requirement for a PPA has been argued by the legislature and the Department of Public Service (and other Parties before the Board), but the Board has not issued any decision, and thus denial of the CPG is not now be based on a commerce or FERC conflict.

Paragraph 16(1) of the 2002 MOU is a common element of many agreements and reads as follows:

“16. Additional Provisions:

1. This Memorandum of Understanding is governed by Vermont law and any disputes under this Memorandum of Understanding shall be decided by the Board.”"