Entergy asked the Public Service Board today to just give it a new certificate of public good claiming no further review is needed. (Read the motion here.)

Judge Murtha’s decision was clear. The Vermont Public Service Board continues to have authority to review Entergy’s actions and determine if continued operation is beneficial to Vermont.

CLF opposed Entergy’s past efforts. This new request is premature. It is contrary to the Court’s order and ignores facts that are important for the Board to hear. Most notable is the fact that Entergy provided false information to the Board about buried pipes.

Entergy’s lack of trustworthiness cannot be ignored. It is an important matter that has bearing on whether Entergy should be allowed to continue to operate Vermont Yankee.

While Entergy might like to ignore these facts, Vermont won’t.

At a time when our governors and our President were preparing to address their constituents, CLF was (and is) making news – news that raises a series of enduring questions: In our country, where is the line between federal and state authority? How clear is it? Who gets to draw it? Why would you draw it in one place instead of another?

These questions are so challenging because they are so fundamental; Americans have wrestled with these same questions for over 200 years. You’ll recall that our first national government, under the Articles of Confederation, was too weak to do the job. The Constitution granted greater power to the national government, but had to be balanced by the Bill of Rights, securing the rights of individuals and of states. The rest of our efforts to get the federal/state balance right has been marked by long periods of contentious negotiation and flashbulb moments of fractious history –national banking, secession and the Civil War, the busting of industrial trusts, the New Deal, and civil rights for all.

Protecting our health and our environment has been a part of the national and regional negotiations for decades. Recent events have provoked further discussion.

By the 1960’s and ‘70’s, when Congress began to address environmental protection and energy in a serious way, its constitutional authority to do so was relatively clear. It exercised that authority boldly, for the great benefit of generations of people and other species. However, as in much of our federalist system, there’s still a sharing of power between national and state governments, both by design and by default. The zone between federal and state authority is sometimes gray. It’s in that messy, gray area that many of our most controversial environmental issues are being debated.

These debates continue to this day. Take two of CLF’s hot issues recently in the news: Vermont Yankee and Cape Cod nitrogen pollution.

Vermont Yankee

The first is the adverse federal court decision CLF (and the State of Vermont) received on Vermont Yankee, the aging nuclear power plant in Vernon, VT. The decision affirmed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s broad authority over safety issues relating to nukes. It  preempted a role for states and handed a major victory to Entergy Corporation.

However, as Anthony Iarrapino points out in this blog post, the fight is far from over. There is a clear role for states in shaping our energy future; in the absence of federal action, states are leading the effort in promoting a clean energy future. Furthermore, as Anthony pointed out in his post, the court said:

“This Court’s decision is based solely upon the relevant admissible facts and the governing law in this case, and it does not purport to resolve or pass judgment on the debate regarding the advantages or disadvantages of nuclear power generation, or its location in this state. Nor does it purport to define or restrict the State’s ability to decline to renew a certificate of public good on any ground not preempted or not violative of federal law, to dictate how a state should choose to allocate its power among the branches of its government, or pass judgment on its choices. The Court has avoided addressing questions of state law and the scope of a state’s regulatory authority that are unnecessary to the resolution of the federal claims presented here.”

Even in the highly “federalized” area of nuclear power there is an undeniable role for states.

Cape Cod

The second is a settlement in principle of our litigation to clean up pollution from sewage on Cape Cod. This is a great step forward – one that  has attracted the focused attention of anti-environmentalists in Congress, as this article attests.

They preposterously allege collusion between environmentalists and the EPA in cases like this to expand federal jurisdiction beyond what Congress authorized in the Clean Water Act, thereby trumping state authority.  However, the federal/state line under the Clean Water Act is about as blurry as they come, in part because the facts relating to pollution and its impacts are extremely complex. As in all cases, the facts matter. Careful, dispassionate assessment of the scientific facts about discharges and pollution, and how the law applies to those facts – not political grandstanding by Members of Congress – is what’s necessary to achieve the visionary goal Congress as a whole committed to decades ago: the elimination of polluting discharges to United States waters, by 1985! It’s time we lived up to that commitment.

There is opportunity in messy, gray areas like the shifting federal/state interface: we can go forward or backward. That is, we can develop sensible allocations of authority between federal and state governments to achieve the public goals behind all of these public initiatives – a healthy environment and a healthy economy, or we can descend into politically motivated mudslinging that obscures the real issues and thwarts real progress.

At CLF we are committed to rational, fact-based discussion of the issues, and prudent forward motion that yields a thriving New England, for generations to come and for all. We know this terrain well. You can count on us to keep working it.

The headlines following yesterday’s federal court decision overturning Vermont laws giving the legislature a say in the continued operation of Vermont Yankee make it seem like the case was a total victory for Louisiana-based Entergy Corporation and its multi-million dollar legal dream team.  Not so!

The decision makes clear that State officials — specifically the state’s Public Service Board — still have broad authority to deny Entergy the “Certificate of Public Good” on grounds that are traditionally within the authority of the state to decide, including economics, land use, and trustworthiness of the plant’s owners to be honest, fair-dealing members of the state’s business community.  Unless Entergy receives a Certificate of Public Good authorization from the Board, it cannot continue operating the plant for another 20 years past its long-scheduled retirement date of March 2012.

Nothing in the Court’s decision upsets that aspect of longstanding Vermont state law — a law that applies to all sorts of power generating projects located in Vermont’s borders — the so-called “Section 248 process”. On page 4 of the Court’s decision the judge clearly states as follows:

“This Court’s decision is based solely upon the relevant admissible facts and the governing law in this case, and it does not purport to resolve or pass judgment on the debate regarding the advantages or disadvantages of nuclear power generation, or its location in this state. Nor does it purport to define or restrict the State’s ability to decline to renew a certificate of public good on any ground not preempted or not violative of federal law, to dictate how a state should choose to allocate its power among the branches of its government, or pass judgment on its choices. The Court has avoided addressing questions of state law and the scope of a state’s regulatory authority that are unnecessary to the resolution of the federal claims presented here.”

So where does that leave things?

Fortunately, CLF has played a leading role in the ongoing Public Service Board proceedings involving Entergy’s application for a new Certificate of Public Good.  Tapping some leading industry experts, CLF has presented a clear case that continued operation of the Vermont Yankee is NOT in the public good of the citizens of Vermont.

Our case rests entirely on grounds that are specifically not placed out of bounds by the Court’s decision yesterday.  These include economics and the failure to have sufficient funds available close the plant and restore the site at the end of its useful life.  Also the claims of an economic benefit from the revenue sharing agreement and the lack of a power contract all show that continued operation does not benefit Vermont.  Add to that the failure of Entergy officials to be forthcoming and provide truthful information about underground pipes, and Entergy’s failure to abide by existing water quality permits and there are many areas of traditional state concern that remain.

The court’s decision is a definite setback, but there are still many opportunities.  Vermont shouldn’t be forced to prop up this old reactor.  Enough is enough.  The Court’s decision left many avenues still open for Vermont to have a say in whether Vermont Yankee continues to operate for another twenty years.

Yesterday, the U.S. District Court issued a decision on Vermont Yankee. We at CLF have been involved in and commenting on the trial and on related issues as they arise. Knowing it can sometimes be hard to track down these various resources, I wanted to take a moment to share a selection of them with you.

• CLF’s Statement in Response to the U.S. District Court’s Decision.
• A copy of the decision itself.
• Timeline of CLF Advocacy on Vermont Yankee

Trial commentary:

• Post-trial commentary, by Sandy Levine
• Post-trial commentary, by Anastasia Douglas
• Pre-trial, by Sandy Levine

Blog posts:

• Untrustworthy Again – Entergy Orders New Fuel for VT Yankee
• CLF, VPIRG support Vermont, oppose Entergy request to keep Vermont Yankee going
• Court blocks Vermont Yankee bid to stay open
• Cleanup Needed NOW at Vermont Yankee
• Conservation Matters cover story: “Vermont Yankee: The Costs of Nuclear” 

A decision in the Vermont Yankee case is expected before the end of the year.  Meanwhile, CLF in its role as “friend of the court” submitted a post trial memo supporting the State of Vermont’s right to have a say about Vermont Yankee.  The brief explains that the Vermont Legislature acted well within its rights and why Entergy’s safety characterizations are faulty.

CLF Attorney Sandy Levine was a guest on the Callie Crossley show on WGBH in Boston Monday  afternoon to discuss Vermont Yankee and the future of nuclear power.

Entergy’s nuclear plants continue to have problems calling into question their ability to  be trustworthy and responsibly manage their nuclear fleet.

A problem at Vermont Yankee Sunday night reduced power to 36% and if the situation is not remedied shortly, the plant will be required to shut down completely.

At the Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant in New York State, investigations led to 4 workers being fired, 34 disciplined, and criminal charges brought against the plant’s former radiation protection technician.  The investigations showed that employees falsified tests of safety equipment, failed to document air samples and failed to conduct leak testing, among other things.

In Michigan, the Palisades Nuclear Plant shutdown twice last week, due to a cooling system problem and also an electrical breaker fault.

This weekend Governor Cuomo stated that the Indian Point nuclear plant could easily be replaced with other power sources because “safety[is] first.”

Should Vermont have a say in the future of Vermont Yankee, an aging nuclear plant on the banks of the Connecticut River?  A trial to answer that question begins next week.  Vermont Yankee’s owner sued the State of Vermont in April.  Yankee’s owners want to avoid State oversight, and filed suit as a last ditch effort to keep the plant operating.     

The State has a strong case.  For years, Vermont has responsibly overseen the economic, power supply and land use impacts of Vermont Yankee – matters within traditional state authority.  Vermont Yankee’s owners ignore this long history and want the Court to find all actions by Vermont are an attempt to regulate radioactive safety – something within exclusive federal authority. 

Conservation Law Foundation provided a “friend of the court” brief explaining the history, legal background and context of the State’s actions focusing on the owner’s untrustworthiness, poor economics of continued operation, and Vermont’s interests in advancing renewable power.   

Beginning Monday, experts on power supply and regulation will explain their views.  The trial will last three days.  A decision is expected later this fall.

Vermont moves a step closer to shuttering the aging Vermont Yankee nuclear power facility as planned in 2012.

In a strong rebuke to Entergy, the facility’s owner, the United States District Court denied a request to keep the plant open while Entergy’s legal challenge proceeds.  Entergy sued Vermont in April.  Entergy seeks to prevent Vermont law – which requires state approval - from taking effect.

The Court denied Entergy’s request for a preliminary injunction, stating:  ”This Court declines to order short-term drastic and extraordinary injunctive relief that will not offer certainty either in the short or long term, and will have no operative effect on state actions before trial.”

The Court rejected each of Entergy’s claims of harm.  The Court noted that a decision about refueling is “a business decision made very difficult by the uncertainties of litigation.”  The Court stated:  “In the unique circumstances presented here, the decision to refuel is either not harmful if Entergy prevails on the merits, or is not a cognizable injury if Vermont’s statutes are upheld.”    Refueling would cost between $60 and $65 million.  Revenues of $90 million would be earned from operating the plant until its planned closure in March 2012.

A full trial will take place this fall.  The Court’s decision on the injunction is a solid victory for Vermont at this stage.

As the battle over Vermont Yankee’s future is waged, Conservation Law Foundation and VPIRG seek to join as a friend of the court, or amicus for this first stage.  CLF will use the expertise gained in opposing Yankee’s continued operation before the PSB to bolster the argument that Yankee’s a long track record of failures preclude the Court from allowing continued operation.  Entergy would love to characterize their re-licensing as a guarantee to operate past 2012. However, CLF points out that their federal court challenge to the license over Entergy’s failure to obtain a necessary Clean Water Act certification makes the license itself uncertain.

CLF urges the Court not to allow Entergy to usurp Vermont law and walk away from their legal obligations.  The false testimony, leaks and bad economics of continued operation are ample justification for Vermont to refuse to grant a new certificate to operate for another twenty years.  In 2009 Entergy officials gave false testimony about the existence of underground pipes that were later found to be leaking radioactive tritium.  As CLF’s brief states:  “If land surveyors, architects, plumbers and physicians assistants can lose or be denied a license for making a material misrepresentation, less cannot be expected or required of nuclear facility operators.  The false testimony that Entergy officials provided under oath calls into question the ability of the plant operator to meet its legal obligations.”

The state of Vermont swung back in its reply brief last week with a laundry list of reasons the court should dismiss Entergy’s request to continue operating during the trial, or a “preliminary injunction”.  Because Entergy agreed to seek Public Service Board (PSB) approval, and not challenge PSB authority in court, the state argues Entergy is bound by their agreement. Also, the state suggests it is inappropriate for Entergy to object to PSB oversight at such a late hour, long after they received the benefit of doing business in Vermont under this agreement since 2002.

The state railed against Entergy’s argument that federal law supersedes state regulation over the aging plant. Vermont argues that, with the exception of radiation safety, states have authority over nuclear in many areas such as, “economics, land use, policy questions regarding a state’s energy future, and whether a corporation running a nuclear power plant has established itself as a trustworthy business partner.” Thus, the state argues that regulation over nuclear was never meant to preempt state law altogether.

Both Entergy and the state of Vermont will have a chance to argue on the preliminary injunction motion before United States District Court Judge J. Garvan Murtha on June 22-24.

CLF and Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) today jointly filed a motion in the U.S. District Court to intervene on the side of Vermont in the lawsuit brought last month against the state by Entergy, owner of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. The two groups maintain that Entergy should follow Vermont law and shut down Vermont Yankee as planned in March 2012.

“This is an important case that will decide the direction of our energy future,” said Chris Kilian, VP and director of CLF Vermont. “CLF and VPIRG will support the state of Vermont in its efforts to uphold Vermont law and ensure that the people’s voice and vision for their energy future will prevail over the interests of out-of-state polluters.” More >