FEBRUARY 18 – MONTPELIER – Gov. Peter Shumlin issued the following statement regarding Attorney General William Sorrell’s announced decision to appeal Judge Murtha’s ruling on Vermont Yankee:
“As I said when the court opinion was issued, I do not agree with Judge Murtha’s decision. We as a state have had many important and legitimate concerns with Entergy Louisiana and its operation of Vermont Yankee that are not reflected in the opinion. I support the Attorney General’s work in getting a positive result on appeal. Meanwhile, my administration will be focusing on the state’s continuing authority over Vermont Yankee.
WCAX is reporting this statement from Sorrell’s office:
Attorney General William H. Sorrell has filed an appeal of the federal district court’s recent decision in favor of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee. The district court, in its January 19 ruling, invalidated two Vermont statutes that gave the Legislature a say on the ability of Vermont Yankee to continue operations when its current state license expires on March 21, 2012. Attorney General Sorrell announced today that the State has appealed all aspects of the judgment entered by the district court.
Other editors, feel free to update this with your own links if you have more detail or want to flesh this out further.
From Bernie Sanders:
Statement on Vermont Yankee Appeal
BURLINGTON, Vt., Feb. 17 – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement today after Vermont Attorney General William H. Sorrell filed an appeal in federal court on behalf of the state’s bid to shut down the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant:
“I support the decision by Vermont to appeal the flawed ruling by Judge Murtha in the Vermont Yankee litigation. I believe the law is clear that states have the right to reject nuclear power based on economic and other reasons that have nothing to do with safety.
“The Vermont Senate in a bipartisan 26-4 vote decided against renewing Vermont Yankee’s license. If Vermont wants to move to energy efficiency and sustainable energy, no corporation should have the right to force our state to stay tethered to an aging, problem-ridden nuclear plant.”
Contact: Michael Briggs (202) 224-5141
“I believe that the Court’s decision undermines the authority of the legislature and its ability to give voice to the concerns of Vermonters. I appreciate that the Attorney General is working to defend the right of Vermonters to speak through their legislators.”
Good for the Governor and Sorrel this needed to happen. I asked VCAN about making a case for our human rights to “security of person” but was told that the NRC had already ruled that yes nuclear power endangers lives but it does so indiscriminately. It does not endanger anyone’s specific life so it is not a violation of human rights to indiscriminately endanger our collective security of persons. So much for our human rights in this arena of insanity and endless lies.
Do call your legislators and push them to keep on ENVY to clean up the river, make needed repairs and anything else that needs doing to be done immediately. Let Entergy know we know they are a bad company and we want them gone. Scram Entergy sleazy polluting liars that you are.
Andrew Fisk, executive director of the Connecticut River Watershed Council said the water-release permit is a separate issue and under the state of Vermont’s jurisdiction…Fisk said warmer-than-usual water can interfere with the feeding and breeding habits of a number of fish but it is particularly disruptive to migratory species such as the American shad and Atlantic salmon.
I wonder how Vermont will have to pay after it loses this one too.
but still think it is good money after bad…. but if the AG office has free time, go forth and prosper.
I will be shocked if corporate personhood doesn’t win big… unfortunately.
It is very rare for a judge to read the transcripts of a legislature’s debate in passing a law. It’s just not done. The Judiciary only looks at the language of the law itself… It sounds like Murtha was trolling for an excuse to side with Entergy.
Based on that VT has a good position to appeal: the judge is not supposed the cherry pick transcripts of debate in order to overturn a law.
If VT were to NOT challenge, then all Entergy has to do in the future is send someone to speak before the VT legislature and say the word ‘safety’, which will give Murtha grounds to throw out the entire law, even though it’s not based on safety.
I am embedding the CNN program here: