The state of Vermont could get a little help from its environmental friends. Three environmental groups have petitioned the U.S. District Court to intervene as party defendants in support of the state in its defense against Entergy Corporation’s legal bid to keep Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant open for 20 years beyond its originally scheduled shutdown March 21, 2012.
Two environmental organizations – Vermont Public Interest Research Group and Conservation Law Foundation – filed motions to intervene in the case on Friday. New England Coalition petitioned the court last week, and on Monday, Entergy asked the judge to reject the coalition’s request on the grounds that the state is already representing its interests. All three nonprofit groups assert that they have a vested interest in the case because of previous legal action they have taken against Entergy Corporation.
At issue is the continued operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power plant in Vernon. The state legislature says it has the authority to deny Entergy a license to operate the plant beyond its original shutdown date of March 21, 2012; the corporate nuclear giant maintains that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s decision to grant Entergy a license extension pre-empts state law.
Sandy Levine, a lawyer for the Conservation Law Foundation based in Montpelier, said Entergy’s court case could potentially negate the foundation’s previous litigation.
“We’ve been very involved in proceedings at the Public Service Board that are being challenged in the federal court case,” Levine said. “This court case would nullify actions where we are a party. We believe we have a significant interest that would allow us to participate in the federal lawsuit.”
James Moore of VPIRG said his organization has been a Vermont Yankee watchdog since the plant was opened in 1972. “We’re really pleased to be working with CLF and we will continue to look for any way that we can make sure Vermont is protected against this seemingly rogue corporation,” Moore said. “Vermonters don’t take a corporation alleging they are above the law, above keeping their own promises, very lightly,” Moore said.
Entergy filed a lawsuit in federal court last month against the state. The Louisiana-based corporation asserts that the state doesn’t have the jurisdiction to supersede the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which granted Entergy a 20-year license extension for Vermont Yankee in March a week after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan.
Entergy purchased the plant in 2002 and signed an agreement that made continued operation of the plant after 2012 contingent on a certificate of public good from the Vermont Public Service Board. In 2006, the Legislature passed a law requiring the Public Service Board to obtain permission from lawmakers before it could issue a certificate of public good to Vermont Yankee.
Vermont is the only state in the country that requires a nuclear power plant owner to seek legislative approval for a license extension. In February 2010, the Vermont State Senate voted 26-4 to deny the Public Service Board permission to award Vermont Yankee a Certificate of Public Good. The senate was then led by Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, a Democrat who was elected governor in November 2010.
Since Entergy filed its lawsuit against the state in April, it has sought a preliminary injunction from the U.S. District Court to prevent the state from enforcing the March 21, 2012 deadline.
The court is expected to issue a decision on the preliminary injunction before July. This phase of the litigation is on a fast track because Entergy has said it needs to know whether it can buy fuel for the plant by mid-summer.
VPIRG and Conservation Law Foundation officials say they believe they have a good chance of getting intervener status, despite Entergy’s likely arguments to the contrary.
In 1982, the Conservation Law Foundation wanted to become a defendant party to the state of Rhode Island in the case, United Nuclear Corp. v. Cannon. The court rejected the request on the grounds that the state adequately represented the defendant.
In a separate case, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. v. Bonsey in 2000, the court ruled that Friends of the Coast’s claimed interest in the case was “indistinguishable from that of the state defendants, and that interest is fully represented by them.”
Levine said these cases didn’t have bearing on the Yankee requests to intervene.
“The bottom line is different for each case; each needs to be decided on the facts of that case,” Levine.
The court will decide on whether to grant Entergy a preliminary injunction on May 23, Levine said. A hearing would likely be held at the end of June, Levine said.
