Case Title: In re VT Yankee Nuclear Power Station

Citation: 175 Vt. 368, 2003 VT 53, 829 A.2d 1284

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2003-07-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Proposed Sale of VT Yankee Nuclear Power Station (2002-368); 175 Vt. 368;
829 A.2d 1284

2003 VT 53

[Filed 25-Jul-2003]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 2003 VT 53

                                No. 2002-368

  In re Proposed Sale of Vermont Yankee	         Supreme Court
  Nuclear Power Station, et al. (New
  England Coalition, Appellant)	                 On Appeal from
                                                 Public Service Board

                                                 March Term, 2003

  Michael H. Dworkin, Chair

  James A. Dumont of Law Office of James A. Dumont, P.C., Middlebury,
    for Appellant.

  James Volz, Montpelier, for Appellee Vermont Department of Public
    Service.

  Victoria J. Brown and Peter F. Young of Eggleston & Cramer, Ltd.,
    Burlington, for Appellees Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, PLLC and 
    Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

  John H. Marshall, Nancy S. Malmquist and Robert A. Miller, Jr. of Downs
    Rachlin Martin PLLC,  St. Johnsbury, for Appellee Vermont Yankee 
    Nuclear Power Corporation.

  Kenneth C. Picton, Rutland, and Morris L. Silver, Benson, for Appellee
    Central Vermont Public Service Corporation.

  Peter H. Zamore of Sheehey Furlong & Behm P.C., Burlington, for
    Appellee Green Mountain Power Corporation.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Skoglund, JJ., and Teachout, Supr. J., and
            Allen, C.J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned

        
       ¶  1.  AMESTOY, C.J.  The New England Coalition (NEC) appeals from
  an order of the Vermont Public Service Board approving the sale of the
  Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station to Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee,
  L.L.C. (ENVY).  NEC claims error in the Board's conclusions that ENVY and
  its operating affiliate, Entergy Nuclear Operating Company (ENO), do not
  need a certificate of public good (CPG) under 30 V.S.A. § 248, and that
  ENVY is eligible for a CPG under 30 V.S.A. § 231.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station began operating in 1972
  after receiving a CPG from the Public Service Board (PSB) in 1966 under 30
  V.S.A. § 102.  Vermont Yankee is the State's largest electric generation
  station, and has provided nearly one-third of Vermont's electricity since
  it began operating.  The plant is owned by Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
  Corporation (VYNPC).  Vermont's two largest electric utilities, Central
  Vermont Public Service Corporation (CVPS) and Green Mountain Power
  Corporation (GMP) together own fifty-five percent of VYNPC.  CVPS and GMP,
  as well as the facility's other utility owners, have a contract with
  Vermont Yankee under which each utility purchases a share of Vermont
  Yankee's capacity and energy equal to their ownership interest.  Thus,
  together CVPS and GMP purchase fifty-five percent of the nuclear plant's
  capacity and energy.

       ¶  3.  On September 4, 2001, the PSB opened an investigation into the
  proposed sale of Vermont Yankee to ENVY.  Under the proposal, ENVY agreed
  to purchase the station for a cash payment of $180 million, and VYNPC
  agreed to purchase all of the station's output through the term of Vermont
  Yankee's current license, which expires in March 2012.  As a result of that
  agreement, GMP and CVPS will continue to receive power from Vermont Yankee
  until 2012.  
   
       ¶  4.  In the PSB proceeding, ENVY and ENO sought certificates of
  public good under 30 V.S.A. § 231 for ENVY to own, and for ENO to operate,
  Vermont Yankee.  See 30 V.S.A. § 231(a) (authorizing PSB to grant a
  certificate of public good to own or operate an electric company if doing
  so "will promote the general good of the state").  The PSB permitted NEC
  and a number of other intervenors to participate in the proceeding.  NEC
  moved to dismiss the case, arguing, among other things, that the
  transaction required review and approval under 30 V.S.A. § 248 because ENVY
  and ENO intended to sell most of Vermont Yankee's power outside Vermont. 
  By order dated December 14, 2001, the PSB denied NEC's motion.  The PSB
  concluded that § 248 was inapplicable because the circumstances under which
  the statute applies - new construction, certain purchases of out-of-state
  power, or investment in out-of-state generation facilities - were not
  present in the proposed transaction.  After holding public and technical
  evidentiary hearings on the proposed sale, the PSB concluded that the sale
  to ENVY, and operation of the plant by ENO, would promote the general good
  and issued the companies CPGs under § 231 accordingly.  This appeal
  followed.

       ¶  5.  NEC limits its appeal to two questions of law.  First, the
  organization challenges the PSB's conclusion that because the transaction
  did not involve construction of new facilities, ENVY and ENO did not have
  to obtain a CPG under 30 V.S.A. § 248.  Second, NEC claims the PSB erred by
  granting ENVY a CPG under § 231.  We review NEC's claims under a
  deferential standard.  In re Quechee Serv. Co., 166 Vt. 50, 52,