Eminent domain suggested as “end-run” to close Vermont Yankee

Vermont Yankee on the banks of the Connecticut River

Nuclear power is a rigged game that lets the federal government preempt state and local governments on most issues, according to Karl Grossman, professor at the State University of New York and author of a book on the subject, Power Crazy: Is LILCO Turning Shoreham Into America’s Chernobyl.

But he thinks that there is a way around the problem: using the power of eminent domain, a legal principle that allows states to condemn property if the owner refuses to sell. In the area of nuclear power, the approach was pioneered in New York during the 1980s to stop the completed Shoreham nuclear plant from opening. At the time advocates of nuclear power were hoping to create a “nuclear park” with seven to 11 plants.

The Long Island Power Act was passed by New York in 1985, creating a Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) with the power to seize the assets and stock of the utility behind the plan, the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO), writes Grossman on Counterpunch, a website edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair.

The federal government wanted Shoreham and the NRC had approved start-up operations. However, Grossman notes that by enacting the Long Island Power Act, which applied the power of eminent domain, New York was saying that if Long Island Lighting persisted the state would step in.

The NRC has never denied a construction or operating license for a nuclear plant in the United States. No new U.S. plants were ordered after the 1970s, but since then federal regulators have approved 20-year license “renewals” to more than half of the 104 US nuclear plants. It is currently considering the possibility of expanding that extension period to 80 years.

The Long Island Power Act “set forth a mechanism for getting rid of the utility by giving the public authority which it created the power to condemn the utility’s assets and stock,” explains Irving Like, a co-author of the law.

“With this we had the ability to tell LILCO: either you shut down the Shoreham plant or we will condemn you,” he said. Grossman believes a similar strategy could be used by Vermont.

Steve Liss, another co-author who served as counsel to the state legislature’s Environmental Conservation Committee, says eminent domain gives a state the power to act “in the public interest for a lawful purpose.” However, it must pay “fair market value” for what it condemns.

After enacting a legal foundation similar to the Long Island Power Act, Vermont could move against the assets of Entergy in Vermont, Liss argued last week. Another possible but extremely costly and complex strategy he mentioned would be for the state to acquire the utilities that distribute electricity from Vermont Yankee and own the transmission lines through which it runs, then refuse the energy and prohibit its transmission.

In 1989, LILCO abandoned Shoreham largely because of New York’s innovative legislative strategy and sold it for one dollar. It was subsequently decommissioned.

A combination of legal and grassroots strategies played a part in the victory; among them were anti-nuclear demonstrations, legal action by Suffolk County under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, and refusal of Suffolk and New York State to adopt a federally-required evacuation plan for the plant. Local governments meanwhile determined that evacuation of Long Island was impossible if a major nuclear accident occurred.

At the time, U.S. Energy Secretary John Herrington warned that if Shoreham didn’t open “the signals will be the low point in this [nuclear] industry’s history.” The closing of Vermont Yankee would have an equally significant impact.

In his ruling, US District Court Judge J. Garvan Murtha said that Vermont’s demand that Yankee be shut down was “grounded in radiological concerns,” an issue on which the federal government has “pre-empted” state and local governments.

Despite this setback, Grossman says an “end-run can be made around the would-be mandate of federal nuclear officials.”

Greg Guma

Leave a Reply

13 Comments on "Eminent domain suggested as “end-run” to close Vermont Yankee"


Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Wendy Ireland
4 years 9 months ago

Perhaps in the interest of smaller government we should try to pressure our President to get rid of the NRC. What sort of useful work does the NRC do anyway?

Sally Shaw
4 years 9 months ago
Once the “assets”: a decrepit power plant AT THE END OF ITS DESIGNED LIFE with radioactively contaminated turbine and piping, a swimming pool of indisposable radioactive waste the equivalent of more than 20,000 Hiroshima bombs, a legacy of soil and groundwater contamination, and an enormous decommissioning and clean-up bill (nearly $1 billion, est., with known site contamination) are accounted for by an INDEPENDENT investigation, it will be seen that it is far cheaper for the state to take and close VT Yankee than to allow it to double it’s toxic waste stockpile, continue it’s poison manufacturing and spewing operation (which… Read more »
Nathanael Nerode
4 years 9 months ago

Indeed, the fair market value of the “Vermont Yankee” plant is less than zero.

Eminent domain would be cheap and trivial for Vermont, apart from legal fees.

John Greenberg
4 years 9 months ago
To be blunt, this is a lousy idea. The State of Vermont would be buying –even for $1 — a potential liability in the billions of dollars. Why would we want to do that? Shoreham was a brand new, minimally contaminated plant. VY is a 40-year hunkajunk at the end of its useful life with boatloads of spent fuel and decommissioning waste. Entergy would like nothing better than to unload it, which they’ve already tried to do in the Enexus deal. This game is far from over, however, and there are a plethora of better strategies left on the table.
Barry Kade
4 years 9 months ago

Only problem with this idea is that when the state condemns property it must pay the owner the market value. The market value of VY with a 20 year license extension is about a bazillion dollars.

4 years 9 months ago

That’s a common misconception. When taking property by eminent domain the evaluation sensibly includes its assets AND the liabilities. The cleanup is definitely a liability, and it is counted AGAINST the owner. Entergy might even end up owing money to the state. See EMDOVY resolution.

4 years 9 months ago
Sally, Hundreds of power plants in the US have 40-year licenses to operate. The 40-year period has nothing to do with the “design life”. It relates to the period of the license to operate. It is an arbitrary number. Google it and you will find out. Almost all power plants are designed based on very conservative assumptions and with much redundancy. How do I know this? I have designed them for about 30 years, including an 1,800 MW coal plant consisting of three 600 MW boilers on a 1,000 acre site. The plants usually perform at near-rated output for 60,… Read more »
Townsend Peters
4 years 9 months ago

Oh good. Condemn VY, shut it down, and pay ourselves and obtain to clean up the plant. That liability includes the unknown costs due to leaks from underground pipes that “surfaced” in recent years. Right. Great idea.

Steven Farnham
4 years 8 months ago
The tax department measures asset value just the way Entergy does: capacity to generate revenue minus amortized costs. In this case, “costs” are defined as something actually paid, like the price of fuel, workers’ compensation, and of course, taxes. They tax what is actually happening, not what ought to be. From the standpoint of environmental concern, costs include a large item Entergy does not pay: decommissioning and clean up of contamination. From the standpoint of John Q. Vermonter, the cost of the latter far exceeds the value of the aggregate electricity produced at any conceivable price; hence the declaration of… Read more »
Grant Reynolds
4 years 8 months ago
In the abstract, it would be nice to have Vermont Yankee shut down in March and promptly decommissioned by Entergy. The devil, as usual, is in some overwhelming details. Let us suppose Entergy bows to the might of the State of Vermont and sells it for $1, like Lilco. The two situations are totally different, but it’s an interesting starting point. But the state also buys the responsibility for decommisioning. Whether it could buy the decommissioning fund for that same dollar is not very likely, and it’s far too small anyway – especially for an immediate start. So the people… Read more »
Kevin Jones
4 years 8 months ago

This is not a workable solution. Greg does not explain that the state authority, LIPA, assumed LILCO’s multi billion dollar debt for Shoreham so the citizens of Long Island have been paying for a nuke that never operated and thus LIPA to this day has one of the highest electric rates in the country given that the customers had to pay the costs of the Shoreham mistake. Vermont purchasing Yankee through eminent domain would be a very bad idea.

4 years 8 months ago
Kevin, That’s a common misconception. When taking property by eminent domain, the evaluation sensibly includes its assets AND the liabilities. The cleanup is definitely a liability, and it is counted AGAINST the owner. Entergy might even end up owing money to the state. See EMDOVY resolution. It is also important to know that the eminent domain deal that Liss worked out through the LIPA did not go through. According to Mr. Liss, who spoke with me last week, the governor intervened at the last moment and offered a deal worth approximately 40 times what was about to be approved under… Read more »
victor ialeggio
4 years 8 months ago
Let me expand on the Shoreham “solution” just a little bit: Three years before that famous “dollar” changed hands (in 1992, not 1989), Shoreham was still a clean, unused plant, never having been fired up. Under the terms of the deal between NYS, LILCO and LIPA, the plant was allowed to run at 5% for a little less than 24 hours. The $6 billion cost of construction, shutdown, decommissioning and cleanup was then off-loaded to Long Island ratepayers (rather than borne by LILCO shareholders) through a surcharge on use, to be paid over a period of thirty years. Making the… Read more »
Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Eminent domain suggested as “end-run” to close Vermont Yankee"