Vermont Public Service Board takes up Entergy relicensure case

The Vermont Public Service Board kicked off two weeks of technical proceedings on Monday to determine whether Entergy Corp., the owner of the 40-year-old Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon, should receive a license to continue operating the facility for 20 more years.

Entergy is making arguments aimed at substantiating its continued operation; the Vermont Pubic Service Department, which represents the Shumlin administration and the state’s ratepayers, is arguing against the company’s bid for the license, which is known as a certificate of public good.

The proceedings begin at the same time the Vermont Supreme Court prepares to hear an appeal filed by the Louisiana-based corporation. Entergy argues that the court should decide the fate of the plant: In filings last week the company said the board should not proceed with the technical hearings for the certificate of public good and should instead relicense the plant based on a pre-existing docket. The state’s highest court is waiting for briefs, which are due March 2.

The anti-nuclear advocacy group the New England Coalition filed a motion with the Public Service Board to halt the board’s planned proceedings until the Supreme Court has ruled on Entergy’s appeal. The board, however, did not make a formal decision on this motion at the outset of the hearings Monday, and instead moved forward with the hearings.

The proceedings began on Monday with testimony from Richard W. Heaps, an economist who found that the closure of Vermont Yankee would adversely affect the economies of Windham County and the state of Vermont.

Boston-based attorney Robert Kirsch, representing the state of Vermont, asked Heap few questions that got by the frequent objections of attorney Robert Hemley from the Burlington-based legal firm Gravel and Shea, which is representing Entergy.

The board was also slated to hear testimony on Monday from Entergy Vice President Marc Potkin and Entergy decommissioning engineer William Cloutier Jr.

For a full list of the individuals slated to give testimony over the next two weeks, click here.

On Tuesday, the board will determine whether to uphold the state’s subpoena of Connie Wells, who was Entergy’s senior manager of business development when the company purchased Vermont Yankee in 2002. The Public Service Department subpoenaed her to talk about the many promises Entergy made to the Public Service Board in 2002.

Public Service Board Chair James Volz also indicated that he did not want to rush the proceedings and was willing to make time for extra testimony.

“There’s no particular rush to get this done,” he said.

In addition to this proceeding and the aforementioned Supreme Court appeal, the state is also tied up in litigation with Entergy in the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Andrew Stein

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

No personal harrassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. Comments should be 1000 characters or fewer. 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. If you have questions or concerns about our commenting platform, please review our Commenting FAQ.

Privacy policy
  • Frances Crowe

    Every day that plant operates it is endangering the health and safety
    of the people in Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Shut it down and
    start the clean up and put the spent fuel rods in dry caskets and bury them deep underground.

    • Jim Christiansen

      The sky is falling, it’s falling the sky!

      Now do the most dangerous thing possible in your daily life, jump in your car and drive home.

      • Dennis Pearson

        1 in 77 end their lives in a car accident. How is that for danger! Please remember to buckle up. Yet we have accepted this risk as part of our normal functioning society. Why not then accept the similar risk of receiving an acute dose of ionizing radiation ~100 mSv and dying of cancer when old and gray? That is if, and it is a big IF, VY were to suffer core damage and have a large scale release. If only we could better tell the difference between perceived risk and actual risk then clear unemotional rationality would reign over fear. This plant does a clear service to all New Englanders. We should not fear it, we should embrace it.

  • ann zaveruha

    COINCIDENCE??? In the past 3 years, I have seen 3 horses within a tenth of a mile of each other die from a fairly rare mouth cancer and my own young mare that was riddled with another type of cancer. Worried? Hell yes I’m worried. I feed my entire family off this farm. The same farm that fed my 2 horses that died of cancer. The only advantage to living within the 10 mile radius of VY is that when it blows, death will be quick- if we don’t die of cancer first. BTW The argument of the dangers of driving a car just don’t relate. Sure driving a car can be dangerous. A risk/benefit for sure. But when my car is so old it becomes a hazard to drive, I scrap it BEFORE I cause an accident. If I choose to keep driving it and cause an accident,although horrific and inexcusable the damage will not be as catastrofic as as a nuclear meltdown.

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Vermont Public Service Board takes up Entergy relicensure case"