11 thoughts on “Breaking — 2nd Circuit rules in favor of Entergy Louisiana”

1. Townsend Peters August 14, 2013 at 2:07 pm
   
   Permalink | Reply
   
   The decision voids the requirement that VY obtain legislative approval for continued operation.

   However, it leaves intact the requirement for VY to get approval from the Public Service Board and arguably strengthens the PSB’s authority by removing a limit that Judge Murtha had placed on the scope of the PSB proceeding.

   The PSB will now be free to fully evaluate the economic benefits and costs to Vermont of Vermont Yankee’s continuing operation.

   With no contract to sell power to Vermont utilities, employee layoffs, a cash-strapped owner, and a creaky plant that could shut down any time, Vermont Yankee’s benefits to the state don’t look as rosy as they used to.

   Amen!

2. As you say, for Entergy, it is only a temporary victory.  

   To which I answer with the title of my diary (below.)

3. that no function of local or state government can stand up to the overbearing will of big assed corporations.  Citizens United remains the huge flag up on the top of the hill for everyone to pledge to, but the battles that are going on down on our levels continue to rely upon Courts that due to conservative stonewalling, lean more and more away from the interests of the citizens.   Without meaningful campaign finance reform we are going to continue to move closer to a society where your class standing has nothing to do with your High School Graduation ranking.    

4. from Rama Schneider at vtdigger:

   It would seem this ruling undermines a whole lot of other lawmaking efforts – think of all the laws passed that attack a woman’s right to manage her own body! How many times have lawmakers expressed their desire to outlaw abortion entirely and then cloaked those efforts with bills that claim to protect a woman’s health.

   While this may suck vis-a-vis Vermont and Louisiana Entergy Yankee, this could have some laudable effects elsewhere.

   While I have doubts that such applications of logic will have the effect that Rama suggest it ought to, it’s nonetheless, an incredibly prescient point.

   I read yesterday’s decision written by the 2nd court of Appeals for this case, and it’s clear that the thrust of the majority’s decision with regard to preemption relies on Gade, 505 U.S. In their own words the court chose to “conduct a more searching review to determine whether a statute was enacted based upon radiological safety concerns” while expressly rejecting “Vermont’s invitation to apply an analytic framework akin to “rational basis review,” which would preclude us from identifying the true purpose of a statute”

   As Rama rightly points out, imagine if that was the standard used for all other laws that are passed?

5. As I understand it, the legislature’s final product did not mention ‘safety’, but that topic was discussed by some legislators and by the public.  It was those mentions that were used by Entergy to successfully squash the Vermont legislation.

   If true, this means that all Entergy has to do to kill any attempt by The People to stop nuclear regulation by the state is to have someone go to a meeting of, say, the PSB and shout SAFETY at the top of their lungs.

6. Who argued the case for Vermont from the AG’s office?

Comments are closed.