State defends authority over Vermont Yankee

Entergy spokesman Jim Sinclair talks to reporters outside of the U.S. District Court in Burlington on Tuesday, June 4, 2013. Photo by Andrew Stein/VTDigger

Entergy spokesman Jim Sinclair talks to reporters outside of the U.S. District Court in Burlington on Tuesday. Photo by Andrew Stein/VTDigger


Assistant Attorney General Bridget Asay and her legal team asserted the state of Vermont’s authority over the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant on Tuesday in U.S. District Court.

Entergy Corp., which owns the plant, filed a lawsuit against the state in April because it wants the Vermont Public Service board to issue a permit by June 11 for the construction of a backup diesel generator or it wants the federal government to intervene.

Entergy contended that the state indicated it would not issue a permit in a timely fashion. Since Entergy must meet federal guidelines, it argues that if the state does not issue the permit by June 11, the state’s power is federally preempted.

Asay argued in front of federal Judge Christina Reiss that Entergy’s contention is based on speculation, as the hearing was June 4 and the state could very well issue the permit by the end of the day on June 10. Furthermore, she added, the quasi-judicial board’s hearing officer recommended that the board provide a permit, known as a certificate of public good (CPG), for the facility, and that Entergy’s proposed schedule is arbitrary.

“The likely outcome is the board will approve the CPG for the generator and this case would be moot,” Asay said in court, adding that the state’s authority to issue such a permit is not preempted under federal law, as Entergy’s attorneys have stated.

“The approval the state will give does not mean it does not have authority,” she said.

The nuclear plant must have a backup source of power to comply with federal regulations, and its contract with Transcanada for that power is set to expire on Sept. 1. To construct the generator by September, Entergy representatives say it needs to begin by June 11. When Entergy filed the lawsuit, the hearing officer, Lars Bang-Jensen, had not yet issued a recommendation. Bang-Jensen also questioned whether the plant should be given the permit, considering that the plant is not in compliance with existing orders.

Entergy spokesman Jim Sinclair said that in light of such ambiguity, his company was forced to take legal action.

“Seven months ago, in September of last year, we filed an application, and it’s taken this long to get this far,” he said. “With the uncertainty of when and if the Public Service Board will rule, we were put in the very difficult position of having to explore this as an alternative.”

Cheryl Hanna, a constitutional law professor at Vermont Law School, outlined the three different directions this case could move in, and they all depend on the Public Service Board.

Vermont Law School professor Cheryl Hanna in March. Photo by Nat Rudarakanchana

Vermont Law School professor Cheryl Hanna in March. Photo by Nat Rudarakanchana

The board could grant the diesel generator a certificate of public good without any contingencies on past or pending orders and permits, which is what Bang-Jensen proposed to the board. This decision would drop the federal case.

“They could grant the certificate of public good with the condition that Entergy is in compliance with all of its other certificates of public good and that, of course, would create conflict within the parties about what that meant,” Hanna said outside the courtroom.

The third option for the board is that it could deny Entergy’s application for the permit, which would raise the question of federal preemption.

Sanford Weisburst — one of Entergy’s attorneys from the New York firm Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP — pointed to federal preemption because the back-up generator serves a safety purpose, and safety issues fall under the purview of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission via the Congressional Atomic Energy Act.

“It’s in the heartland of preemption because it’s safety motivated,” he told Judge Reiss.

Aside from opening comments, the morning session on Tuesday was consumed by the state cross-examining George Thomas, Vermont Yankee’s senior project manager, about how various construction project schedules have shifted. Hanna said this was not the main issue at hand.

“The factual question in this case, about whether Entergy needs 82 days or 63 days, is really minor and a lot of legal wrangling to really very little good,” she said. “The bigger legal question in this case is whether or not the state of Vermont could withhold a certificate of public good because it’s federally preempted from doing so and that really comes down to whether or not the federal regulation at issue here is fundamentally a safety issue.”

Hanna expects that Reiss will wait for the Public Service Board’s decision before making one of her own.

On Wednesday, the Public Service Board is taking a single oral argument on the permit application from the anti-nuclear New England Coalition, which opposes the permit. The board is then expected to issue a decision soon thereafter.

In addition to this federal suit, Entergy and the state of Vermont are currently litigating in federal appeals court over the Legislature’s authority to shut the plant down, over a generation tax passed last legislative session, in the Vermont Supreme Court, and in front of the Public Service Board to provide a new certificate of public good for the plant to operate for another 20 years.

The case in front of the federal court of appeals bears far more weight on the future of the plant’s ability to operate and a state’s power over a nuclear facility, Hanna pointed out.

“The fundamental question is what is a relationship between a state and a federally regulated, currently operating nuclear facility, and there is no clear answer to that question,” she said.

Andrew Stein

Leave a Reply

8 Comments on "State defends authority over Vermont Yankee"


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 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
david klein
3 years 7 months ago

“I stand for judgement. Answer; shall I have it?”-Shylock, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV, Scene 1

Howard Shaffer
3 years 7 months ago

In the preemption case now at the Federal Appeals court, the opponents of Vermont Yankee have often raised the California case as precedent. In that case the state refused to allow NEW nuclear power plants on economic grounds-the future cost of used fuel disposal when no national plan existed.

The opponents leave out the fact that California did not touch ALREADY LICENSED plants.

Professor Hanna is correct, that the issue of state authority over operating plants is not clear. It will likely be decided for the nation by the Vermont Yankee case.

John Greenberg
3 years 7 months ago
The Vermont press has done readers a disservice by failing to provide adequate background to assess the issues in this case. In particular, the following points have been ignored: 1) Readers should be aware of the timelines involved here. Rather than present them myself, I quote from “PREFILED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF GEORGE THOMAS,” dated March 15, 2013 and submitted as part of Docket 7862 (Entergy’s request for a CPG for continuing operations) concerning the timeline leading up to the filing of the diesel generator case: “A11. On or about December 21, 2011, ISO-NE first notified Entergy VY that the Vernon… Read more »
Jon Wharf
3 years 7 months ago
Mr Greenberg is wrong on a number of points and misguided on others. He probably needs to chose his battles – the PSB is firmly in the wrong on this one. From December 21 2011 to July 24 2012 is about seven months, which includes time for negotiation with Transcanada and evaluation of other blackstart options. The July date indicates the start of the CPG application process. The attempt to suggest that Entergy was unusually dilatory fails. [and, JG, Dec 21 2011 to Sep 7 2012 is still LESS than nine months, and LESS than the time from then to… Read more »
Coleman Dunnar
3 years 7 months ago
Another point Mr. Greenberg ignores is whichever of the 4 options Entergy had chosen it would have required coming before the Board for approval whether it be hardware on site or off or a contract for cold start power. Regarding Mr. Greenberg’s comment “Given, as noted above, that Entergy would have options of complying with NRC safety regulations without directly confronting longstanding Vermont regulations, the preemption issue seems far less clearly raised than in the previous case.” IMHO this far less ambiguous than the previous case and there is a very bright line separating safety from any other issue regarding… Read more »
John Greenberg
3 years 7 months ago
Coleman Dunnar claims that I “ignored” the point that “whichever of the 4 options Entergy had chosen it would have required coming before the Board for approval.” First, why would Board approval be needed “intervening in the relevant ISO-NE/FERC tariff proceeding,” which is the first choice mentioned by Entergy’s witness? Or for that matter with option 2: “developing a contract with the owner/operator of the Vernon Hydro Station to provide station blackout power.” As far as I can see – though I’m not well versed in this kind of law — neither would require Board approval. But that said, I’m… Read more »
John Greenberg
3 years 7 months ago
Jon Whorf correctly notes that I misspoke when I wrote that “Entergy took more than 9 months to put this case before the Public Service Board.” From December 21 to September 7, when the petition was submitted is only 8 ½ months. That said, I take issue with all of the remaining points he raises. I did not say or imply that Entergy was “unusually dilatory.” I did suggest that since Entergy is now in a tearing hurry, it is worth noting that its own decisions were responsible for some of the lost time. These decisions MAY have been reasonable;… Read more »
Willem Post
3 years 7 months ago
The above back and forth omits to mention Vermont Yankee has made a significant 40- year contribution to minimize the factors that may cause global warming and climate change and has provided low- cost, near CO2- free energy at the same time. Instead of faulting VY, we should be lauding it for that. VY needs emergency power. It is a public good that VY be safer WITH emergency power. It is beyond rational to even discuss all the details in such a lawyeresque, hair-splitting detail. Issue the permit to put in the diesels and be done with it, instead of… Read more »
Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "State defends authority over Vermont Yankee"