There’s this from John Dillon / VPR:
But Entergy CEO Wayne Leonard says Yankee’s future should be decided by the feds. He made his comments in a conference call with investment analysts.
(Leonard) “We strongly believe that this is federal jurisdiction. We have choices that need to be made and we’ll make them at the appropriate time.”
Never mind the fact that part of Entergy’s agreement to purchase Vermont Yankee involved an agreement to follow the will of Vermont:
A court challenge would contradict Entergy’s previous promises. A former chairman of the Public Service Board says Entergy expressly agreed to submit to Vermont oversight when it bought the plant in 2002. Michael Dworkin now heads the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School.
(Dworkin) “I think if you review the transcripts of what they said in the hearing room under oath at the time you’ll see that they said repeatedly that this was a commitment that was binding, that they would not break it, and that it could not be reversed by going to federal court.”
Good thing this isn’t a Friday, or I’d have to place another option on the poll: “VY stops pretending to be truthful and honest.”
and is inclined to decide to break their previous pledge to abide by such and, as long as they could do so safely enough of course (as if), let them float the VY plant down the Connecticut River and move it to Louisiana.
If only they could, heh?
I am shocked, shocked to find that (lying, leaking, poor maintenance) is going on here!
Really, after Entergy tried its little spinoff-into-a-shell-corporation move, nothing should surprise anymore.
They didn’t think there would be a Democratic governor and continued Dem dominance in the Leg when relicensing came up…
… but is this one cursed or what?
considering that Jay thayer, a little over one short year ago, when offering Enexus wonderful PPA bargain to VT, after which there was a run for the door, then claimed ‘If Enexus not approved, Entergy likely to pull out of VT’. Heh.
Bluff & bluster then, bluff & bluster now.
This story keeps surfacing, but there’s never been any substance to it, and there still isn’t. The words “preemption” and “lawsuit” appear nowhere in Leonard’s remarks (http://seekingalpha.com/article/251633-entergy-s-ceo-discusses-q4-2010-results-earnings-call-transcript
). Specifically, there is NO threat to sue. Instead, Leonard, without further definition, says there will need to be a decision taken.
The reason for this is actually quite clear: the existing legal scheme DOES give states the right to regulate nuclear plants on issues NOT pertaining to safety or nuclear aspects of operation, “whereas,” in the words of the US Supreme Court, “the States exercise their traditional authority over economic questions such as the need for additional generating capacity, the type of generating facilities to be licensed, land use, and ratemaking.” (PG& E vs State Commission, 1983)
Given this, as well as the fact that, in Leonard’s words “over the last few years, VY’s earnings contribution to Entergy at best has simply covered its fully allocated overhead,” it seems to me improbable that Entergy will decide anything other than to close a marginal plant and move on to more profitable ventures. But hey, not much of a story in that is there.