Skip to main content

View Diary: Court to Vermont: "Drop Dead" (200 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Agree with most of this: (23+ / 0-)

    But, the author of the blog emphasizes the terms of the contract itself between the State and the Corp.  In contract law, it is much tougher for good lawyering (though not impossible) to get around the actual words of the contract.

    If the contract specifically states that the reactor may be shutdown by the state after a specified period of time and has shown to fail certain requirements set out specifically in the contract - then this is a rogue judge or the contract is extremely murky.

    I agree that the state has far more potent weapons in its arsenal than an immediate appeal, the successful use of eminent domain used in NY is a good example - but would cost the state money they should not owe to the corp.  A much cheaper solution seems to be the huge safety risk posed by the reactor and an appeal to the Atomic Energy board and or the EPA for illegal dumping in violation of the clean water act.  Very serious violations can result in clean up costs and criminal charges that would effectively make the reactor to expensive to maintain and lead to its shutdown.

    DO NOT give up.  This things sounds like an epic environmental disaster, sure to get worse.  IF the entire state is essentially against this thing, it will be shut down, one way or another.

    "How can the United States be the Greatest Nation ever if it is the only modern nation where citizens hold bake sales to pay for life saving medical care?" Single payer is coming but how many people will die before it becomes the only solution?

    by 4CasandChlo on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 04:58:29 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  There must be more. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Samer, ColoTim

      From the diary:

      In 2003 Entergy made a deal with the state of Vermont. The Louisiana-based nuke speculator said that if it could buy and operate the decrepit Vermont Yankee reactor under certain terms and conditions, the company would then agree to shut it down if the state denied it a permit to continue.
      Surely the state doesn't have unlimited discretion to deny the permit on a whim. Surely the contract, or permit law, says the permit can only be denied if VY fails to meet safety requirements.

      Now, I understand that the diarist is making a pretty good case that VY is unsafe. But unsafe in the opinion of Kossacks is not the same as unsafe under whatever safety standards have been legally enacted by the state of Vermont, and presumably by the US government.

      So I suspect the court dispute boils down to, "Has VY met the safety standards in the contract and in the law?" And I suspect it takes a nuclear engineer, or advice from nuclear engineers, to answer that question.

      I could be wrong. If so, please correct me.

      "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

      by HeyMikey on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 07:14:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  generally one may waive (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joieau, happymisanthropy

      statutory rights in a contract. So if the contract was open ended, Vermont could withdraw the permit at any time after a specific date for any reason, or any numbers of reasons,  potentially including safety or 'best interest of the public" as one of them, the court should have enforced the contract as written.  Most statutes which contain provisions that may not be waived by contract state so explicitly.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site