The Green Mountain state is the only state with a law saying both houses of the Legislature must vote affirmatively to allow continued operation before regulators can give the plant the renewed state license.
The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant is seen on the banks of the Connecticut River in Vernon, Vt. last month.MONTPELIER, Vt. – Two more groups filed court papers Friday in hopes of intervening on the state’s behalf in a civil suit brought by the owners of Vermont Yankee nuclear plant trying to block the state’s efforts to shut down the reactor next year.
The Conservation Law Foundation and Vermont Public Interest Research Group’s bid to intervene in the case followed a filing by Entergy Corp. at U.S. District Court earlier this week asking it to reject a similar bid by another group critical of nuclear power, the New England Coalition.
Entergy sued last month, saying the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission has jurisdiction over the operation of nuclear plants and that Vermont doesn’t have the authority to shut down the plant in March 2012. The NRC granted the plant a 20-year extension of its federal license in March.
Vermont is the only state with a law saying both houses of the Legislature must vote affirmatively to allow continued operation before regulators can give the plant the renewed state license it also needs, called a certificate of public good. The state Senate voted 26-4 in February 2010 to halt the Public Service Board process that could have led to issuance of the new state certificate.
Entergy argues in its lawsuit and in public statements that the state law, passed in 2006, marked a stark change in the conditions of its operation in the state that were in place when it bought Vermont Yankee from a group of New England utilities in 2002. Supporters of closing the plant point to legislative testimony by Entergy lobbyists indicating the company knew legislative approval was required for continued operation.
Sandra Levine, a lawyer with the Conservation Law Foundation, said in an interview Friday that her group and the public interest research group believe they can bring to the case a perspective different from what will be offered by the state.
The New England Coalition made similar arguments earlier, pointing to the fact that in hearings before the NRC, it pushed the agency to consider safety issues at Vermont Yankee that had not been raised by the state.
“You can’t assume that the state is going to represent CLF’s interests,“ Levine said. “CLF and VPIRG have our own very strong, independent legal interests that will be affected by this court proceeding.“
Vermont Yankee spokesman Larry Smith said the company wouldn’t comment Friday on the filing by CLF and VPIRG. Earlier this week it filed a response to the request to intervene by NEC, saying the group’s involvement could slow a case in which a quick resolution is essential.
“NEC, which is adequately represented by the state of Vermont, will principally offer either duplicative or irrelevant factual material that will likely delay resolution of this matter,” Entergy’s lawyers argued. “NEC’s participation as an intervenor is thus inconsistent with the court’s May 5, 2011, scheduling order placing this case on an expedited track.”