A Judge Rules Vermont Can’t Shut Nuclear Plant

[SecularMotion]

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Thursday blocked Vermont from forcing the Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor to shut down when its license expires in March, saying that the state is trying to regulate nuclear safety, which only the federal government can do.

The judge, J. Garvan Murtha of United States District Court in Brattleboro, Vt., also held that the state cannot force the plant’s owner, Entergy, to sell electricity from the reactor to in-state utilities at reduced rates as a condition of continued operation, as Entergy asserts it is now doing.

The nuclear operator filed a lawsuit last year challenging the constitutionality of a state law giving the Vermont Legislature veto power over operation of the reactor when its original 40-year license expires.

In an extensive review of the legislative record, Judge Murtha pointed out in his ruling that in remarks “too numerous to recount here,” state lawmakers and witnesses made clear that their effort to close the plant was “grounded in radiological safety concerns” — the province of the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The commission has already granted Vermont Yankee a 20-year license extension.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/science/earth/vermont-cant-shut-down-nuclear-plant-judge-rules.html?hp

[Trillo]

1. In Fukushima we recently learned that escaped nuclear power particles are no longer owned by Tepco.

So, perhaps the laws that give no control to localities, and to states, in regard to nuclear power generation need revision. In Fukushima, I believe the court said that a golf course could not collect from the utility for radioactive-particle cleanup costs....

Curiously, that seems the opposite argument that Monsanto has used with farmers such as Schmeiser.

The difference only makes sense when the money is followed. If it's good for corporate finances, it's a good ruling. If it's bad for corporate finances, it's bad. Note that what is good for the people living nearby is not really a concern.

[mattvermont]

2. very well put nt.

[mwrguy]

3. K&R

[cstanleytech]

4. Question........can the state levee taxes on plants for the money they earn?

If so perhaps they should consider something like doing a 70% tax on power plants and granting a break of 50% or more to "green sources" of energy.

[BrightKnight]

5. The legislature wants coal and gas.

There is nothing green about it.

A 70% energy tax would burry the economy and it would be political suicide for anyone voting for it.

[Massacure]

6. The courts probably wouldn't like that, finding that Vermont is thumbing its nose at them.

It would be simpler to do something along the lines of an annual $87600 per MW nameplate capacity tax on nuclear reactors. It would only be equal to one cent per kilowatt hour, but if it is charged once a year, it is kind of hard to not notice that 53 million dollar expence when they are considering infrastructure spending.

[lovuian]

7. Nuclear is dangerous

and that is what Vermont is trying to say