PUTNEY — I am one of the many Vermonters who is angry and saddened, but not surprised, by the will of the federal courts to twist the law in favor of corporate interests. Entergy's win in its immoral lawsuit against the state of Vermont is an example of right-wing judges asserting corporate control over our state.
The basis of both the initial ruling by Judge J. Garvan Murtha, and the appeal court's backing of that ruling [News, Aug. 21], is not that the Vermont Legislature passed an unconstitutional bill, but that legislators either talked about safety or, even more insidious, implied that they were concerned for constituent safety by discussing other issues such as the environment and the economics of Vermont Yankee.
This ruling is just wrong. How is it legal for a large, out-of-state corporation to dictate what our legislators can and cannot debate in creating a body of laws?
The basic, underlying fact of nuclear power is that it is dangerous and potentially catastrophic to the population in surrounding communities. The ongoing disaster at Fukushima is reminds us of the potential risks.
Of all forms of power generation, only nuclear energy is exempt from commercial liability insurance; needs evacuation plans, sirens, and drills; and creates casks and pools of waste that will be toxic to all life for tens of thousands of years.
The U.S. Congress long ago delegated the right to regulate safety to the Atomic Energy Commission, the predecessor of today's Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Like the AEC before it, the NRC is an agency with strong ties to the nuclear industry and whose employees have little or no concern for the well-being of communities near local reactors. Where does the law state that the elected representatives who actually care about our welfare are not allowed to voice their concerns about the dangerous aging reactor in our midst?
Our citizen legislators passed Act 160 because Vermonters wanted to be certain that Entergy would shut the reactor when its Certificate of Public Good expired, in March 2012.
The many good reasons for closure include the serious damage of thermal pollution to the Connecticut River, the economics of hosting an aging nuke, the state's planned move toward renewable energy, tritium leaks, the many problems with Entergy's ownership of VY.
Act 160 was a good law, and should have been able to stand unchallenged.
The Murtha ruling was so flawed that the appeal by the state was the only route toward justice. Vermont has not wasted resources, as the appeal was an attempt to make right a horrible wrong. In the United States, and worldwide, big energy companies are responsible for much damage to the Earth.
Entergy is one of these culprits; the state has been courageous and on the right side of history in trying to end a dangerous and obsolete technology.