Judge J. Garvan Murtha's disappointing but unsurprising ruling in the Entergy v. Vermont federal lawsuit has made it likely that Vermont Yankee will stay open past March 21.
Like any good judge, Murtha respected precedent and avoided legislating from the bench, though if ever there were an issue that needed legislating, it would be the way that a state is prohibited from any control over an issue that affects the very lives of its citizens - nuclear safety.
Only the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has that authority, a principle that was upheld in 1982.
It is patently ridiculous that the NRC, a government agency with a long record of being a lapdog for the nuclear industry, is the sole arbiter of safety. Unfortunately, that is the law.
Until significant political reform can overhaul the NRC and make it more than a shameful rubber stamp, those are the rules Vermonters have to play under. The NRC approved a license extension last March and proclaimed the plant as safe, leaving Vermonters without any recourse to contest that finding.
* * *
The result of the lawsuit was inevitable. Put aside a system that is hard-wired to disenfranchise state law: Entergy hired the best legal team it could get and completely overwhelmed the junior staffers from the Vermont Attorney General's office when the case went to trial.
But as much as Murtha gave Governor Peter Shumlin and Attorney General William Sorrell a total beatdown, he left the door ajar for the state to exercise the regulatory oversight it has claimed.
The state can't shut Vermont Yankee down based on safety concerns, but the Public Service Board still has the right to reject a Certificate of Public Good on the basis of other factors.
The major problem is that trying to differentiate safety from the other aspects of nuclear power is like trying to take a yolk out of a scrambled egg.
How can you talk about environmental issues without objectively running into the elephant in the living room: the fact that when nuclear power plants degrade our environment, they do so largely by means of byproducts that are unsafe?
How do you talk about reliability without confronting the issue that a nuclear power plant that isn't working might well not be working because of mechanical failures that also result in safety issues?
The upshot for the state is that no matter what other issues are discussed legitimately, it will be particularly easy for corporate lawyers to call any subsequent argument a pretext for safety, just as they have done with large success in this lawsuit.
And at any rate, the economic factor has already been decided. If the plant continues operating, its power will go out of state - and thus, Vermonters' economic best interests in power deals are not even an issue.
Water quality is still an area the state can regulate. Tritium is still leaking into the Connecticut River. The water used to cool VY's reactor is still not being properly cooled, and it is returning to the river at temperatures that affect fish habitat.
* * *
Several concerns remain. First is the scenario that Entergy will shut the plant down before 2032 and stick the state with the cost of decommissioning the plant, a cost estimated to be close to $1 billion.
Now is the time to ensure that Entergy will be made to hold up that end of the bargain, although that company has just proved that it cannot be trusted to abide by any agreement that its corporate officials sign.
Far less likely, but even worse: given the stranglehold that the nuclear industry has on the NRC, and federal lawmakers' propensity to prostitute themselves to huge corporate interests, would it be that much of a surprise to see more license extensions granted in 20 years?
Would it be that much of a surprise to see more claims of “safe, clean, reliable” in 2030? Employees once again trotted out as human shields in advertising campaigns to tug at the heartstrings?
It is also time to get serious about a replacement for nuclear power, whether it's Vermont or utilities from other states buying the power that VY produces.
While countries like Japan and Germany are scaling back their commitment to nuclear power, the United States is trying to maintain an aging and increasingly unreliable fleet. While other nations are investing in renewable energy, this nation keeps dragging its feet.
And when VY closes - which it must do eventually - Windham County must be ready. One cannot remove 600 to 650 employees from a fragile economy - one of the most fragile in the state - and expect the area not to feel the consequences of those lost jobs.
The myriad nonprofit organizations need to begin planning now - yes, now - to find alternate means of funding so they can survive without Entergy's corporate largesse that so often crossed way over the line into out-and-out bribery.
* * *
And a final note.
The legacy of Vermont Yankee on Windham County will not be measured in megawatts, by the number of employees, or by the dollar value of its corporate donations. It will not be measured in picocuries, or the number of tons of NRC documents sitting in Ray Shadis's garage.
It will not be measured by the number of spent fuel rods sitting in Vernon, by the amount of Strontium-90 in fish swimming down the Connecticut, or by the number of bananas that VY apologists must use to dismiss arguments about the dangers of tritium.
The biggest - and most difficult-to-measure - legacy of this nuclear power plant comes in the effect that 40 years of this debate has had on the community of this area.
The plant has caused an insidious and special form of nuclear fission, one that has created fragmented sub-communities that have long given up having a civil debate, let alone working with or talking with one another in other aspects of life and work here.
Whatever happens, the community needs to prepare to repair 40 years' worth of damage.
Will we be able to put aside old wounds, cruel accusations, presumptions of intent? Can Vermont Yankee wind down with dignity and grace, involving its employees in long-term planning for a Windham County where they will no longer be able to work in their own field?
Can anti-nuclear activists and pro-nuclear advocates work together on the essential and difficult, years-long undertaking to rebuild, redefine, and reimagine a local economy, an undertaking that will require the buy-in and collaboration of everyone involved, even people who have often dehumanized one another for years, if not for decades?
Whatever this new future might look like now, the present chapter has by no means ended. Attorneys are poring over Murtha's brief. Advocacy groups are analyzing their options. And activists are exploring their own new strategies in the aftermath of this blow.
Vermont lost its case in all practical ways. Now we have to pick up the pieces and work toward other ways of ensuring a post-nuclear future.