Re: “Legal costs better spent elsewhere” [Letters, Feb. 29]:
This is a very misguided idea.
At issue is a constitutional question that has far-reaching implications for the rights of states and the powers of the legislatures that represent the citizens at the state level.
Further, the Vermont Yankee case rests on an agreement that Entergy made with the state of Vermont when the company purchased Vermont Yankee 10 years ago.
If Judge Murtha's decision were to go unchallenged, it would open the door to virtually unlimited power of federally regulated corporations to ignore contracts and state laws. It would be an incredibly bad precedent.
Vermont is absolutely right to appeal. Further, if (and when) the state is successful, Entergy will have to reimburse some or all of the state's legal expenses instead of the other way around.