In 2011, the Vermont state senate voted to close
down Vermont Yankee. In 2012, federal judge Gavan Murtha ruled that the
reason for their vote was the concerns with nuclear safety. Since
nuclear safety is regulated solely by the federal government, not state
legislatures, Murtha ruled against the state. The state appealed the
ruling. Nuclear opponents claimed they had been "out-lawyered," so the
state hired a more high-powered attorney for its appeal. However, if the
senators weren't voting on nuclear safety, what was the basis for their
vote? The new attorney argued the senators were voting on economics.
To bolster his argument, he cited two facts about Vermont Yankee: it
provides low-cost power, and it will share money with the state
utilities if prices rise on the grid. These facts are completely
correct, but most people would say these are economic arguments for
keeping the plant, not shutting it down.
No comments:
Post a Comment