The Yankers and the Yankees

And guess which ones we are.

Well, it looks like the way is clear for 20 more years of “safe, clean, reliable power” with absolutely “no threat to public health or safety.” Yesterday’s ruling by federal judge Garvan Murtha was pretty much a slam-dunk victory for Entergy and Vermont Yankee. Sure, Vermont could appeal, but it’d be a costly process with an uncertain outcome. Today on WDEV’s Mark Johnson Show, Vermont Law School Professor Cheryl Hanna said that the state would have little to no chance at overturning Murtha’s decision. And there seems to be nothing the Legislature can do to change things.

(Addendum, Saturday 1/21. A differing opinion, reported in the Comments to this post by Doug Hoffer:

I heard one of her colleagues from the VLS say something quite different on VPR this morning. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals could very well look askance at Judge Murtha’s attempt to read the minds of legislators. Prof. Parenteau (sp?) said he put the state’s chances at 50 – 50.

That is more encouraging than Hanna’s outlook. I’m almost certain we’ll get the chance to find out; appealing the decision is pretty much a political no-brainer for Shumlin, whether a reversal is likely or not.)

I have a few thoughts about this, and welcome yours in the comments below.

— Was the agreement giving the state a say in license extension just a big scam all along? No other state had any such deal with a nuclear power plant; regulation is otherwise the province of the feds. So was Vermont’s agreement doomed from the start? Was Entergy willing to sign it because, deep down, it knew it could go to court and get the deal tossed out? Did the Legislature accept the deal knowing it might be nothing more than a fig leaf? Were they misled by leadership, or too clueless to realize the fact?  I can’t say; I didn’t live in Vermont at the time. I’d be glad for some historical perspective.

— Will our plucky Ethan Allen Institute conservatives be all up in arms over this trampling of states’ rights? Mmmm, probably not. Hypocrites. Moving on…

— Is it time to start a “Dump Bill Sorrell” movement? He got his ass kicked but good on this one. Maybe he was playing a weak hand, but hey, when a football team loses, the coach and the quarterback get the blame. (His losing streak also includes the state’s campaign finance law.) And let us not forget his issuance of a free pass allowing the Hartford Police Department to commit mayhem in the name of keeping the peace, topped off by his opinion that “there is no right to resist an arrest, even an illegal one.”

(And maaan, did he sound stupid and clueless on the radio this morning, when Mark Johnson was questioning him about Murtha’s ruling. If you didn’t catch it live, Mark podcasts his shows on his website. (Google “Mark Johnson Show.”) He usually posts fresh audio within a day or two. Sorrell was on right at the beginning of the first hour today.)

I’d call for a Sorrell version of the GMD Oddsmaker if not for The Salmon Theorem: The voters of Vermont will blindly re-elect incumbents unless/until they (a) commit felonies or (b) die.

And I’m not sure about (b).

— In a moment of pure political cynicism, I find myself thinking that the decision is a big fat win-win for Governor Shumlin. He gets credit for vocally opposing Vermont Yankee, but he doesn’t have to deal with the consequences of an actual closure.

But I’m sure that evaluating a politician on the basis of cynicism is completely unfair.

I am Seamus, and I am grateful to be riding on the roof.  

16 thoughts on “The Yankers and the Yankees

  1. “Vermont Law School Professor Cheryl Hanna said that the state would have little to no chance at overturning Murtha’s decision”

    I heard one of her colleagues from the VLS say something quite different on VPR this morning. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals could very well look askance at Judge Murtha’s attempt to read the minds of legislators. Prof. Parenteau (sp?) said he put the state’s chances at 50 – 50.

  2. Sorrell doesn’t impress me either.  It didn’t help that he communicated that the state had a strong case.

    Although, I don’t understand the decision given Act 160 doesn’t mention safety and that presumably states should have the voice to commission or decommission a nuclear power plant.  Apparently the NRC runs the world, we just live in it.

  3. can not “by law” protect its citizens from radiation, water pollution and other hazards — from any industry and only a certifiable biased revolving door between regulators and industry apparatchiks NRC – are just A – OK?

    Is this not what this ruling is saying? National implications galore just read the latest New York time article and comments.  

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01

    Forgetting Entergy and Vermont Yankee for a second, it is incredibly rich in scope of the hypocrisy of “states rights” by supporters of nuclear power with cross grain in so many ways. Somehow I do not think this is the last on this.

    I hope the mashing of teeth heard in the state house is put to good use and focus

  4. In a moment of pure political cynicism, I find myself thinking that the decision is a big fat win-win for Governor Shumlin. He gets credit for vocally opposing Vermont Yankee, but he doesn’t have to deal with the consequences of an actual closure.

Comments are closed.