The day after Entergy announced its intention to sue the state of Vermont, the New Orleans-based corporation took out a full-page ad in all of Vermont's daily newspapers explaining why its leaders feel it is necessary to file a federal lawsuit to keep the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon open for another 20 years.
The ad was in the form of a letter from Entergy CEO J. Wayne Leonard, and it is the latest installment of the public relations blitz that Entergy has undertaken to convince Vermonters of the need to keep the plant open.
However, in keeping with Entergy's ongoing ad campaign, Leonard blurs the truth in his letter. Modern corporate public relations campaigns aren't designed to enlighten. They are designed to sow confusion and doubt, and to discredit critics.
Leonard wrote that Entergy “agreed to a process in which an independent expert agency would decide Vermont Yankee's future based on evidence and facts developed through an impartial process with the possibility, if necessary, of court review. We did not agree to a process involving the Legislature, which is inherently political.”
That is not true. Entergy did not oppose Act 160, enacted in 2006, which required that the Legislature explicitly direct the state Public Service Board (PSB) to issue a Certificate of Public Good (CPG), the state permit required for the plant's operation.
As Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin pointed out last week, while Act 160 was not part of the original memorandum of understanding that Entergy signed in 2002 when it bought the plant, Entergy's executives, lawyers, and lobbyists all reviewed Act 160 and “expressed its support of that law at that time.”
“Entergy is now attempting to rewrite history, breaking its own promises and its own support of Vermont law,” said Shumlin, adding that Entergy's suit “flies in the face” of the commitments it made to the state five years ago.
By all appearances, Entergy didn't put up a fight over Act 160 because its leaders believed that the Legislature would never vote against Vermont Yankee's continued operation. It was easy for them to waive any claim that federal law preempts the jurisdiction of Vermont.
At the time, the company had a Republican governor - Jim Douglas - who was solidly in its corner. Public opinion in the state was solidly behind Vermont Yankee. The economy was still in good shape and demand for electricity was rising.
But as soon as the cooling tower at Vermont Yankee collapsed in the summer of 2007, the debate changed.
More and more Vermonters became concerned about the plant's safety. The recession that followed not long after the cooling tower collapse reduced electrical demand and made Vermont Yankee's energy not as essential to the New England grid.
The long list of mishaps at the plant which culminated with the leak of tritium-laced water last year from underground pipes whose existence plant officials denied in state testimony.
The vote Entergy never expected to happen did, and the Vermont Senate last year voted 26-4 against directing the PSB to issue a CPG for Vermont Yankee.
So while Leonard wrote that Entergy believes the state “substantially changed our agreement” and “deprived us of certain critical rights that we relied upon in purchasing the plant,” the facts suggest otherwise.
Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell said the state is ready to defend itself against Entergy's suit, and that the state can make a strong case for its contentions.
Entergy's best hope is for the federal courts to uphold its contention that only the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which granted a 20-year license extension for Vermont Yankee last month, has the right to make judgments on whether a nuclear plant should be allowed to operate.
But for the courts to do so, they would have to ignore the precedent that was set by Entergy agreeing to give Vermont a say.
That might be a stretch.