Shouldn't that be central to the story?
Instead, we seem to be treated to the shallow assumption that nuclear plants should be closed "just because". Is that why the governor and legislature acted as they did?
Nor is there any information regarding the competing arguments and why the judge decided as he did. Was his decision based on "just because"?
Talk about vacuous reporting...
Well, if one were to look elsewhere
In March, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted Entergy a new license to operate the plant for another 20 years, past March 2012, when the current license expires. But Vermont legislators have blocked the company from receiving a state certificate, which is needed to extend the reactor’s life.
When Entergy bought the Vermont facility in 2002, it agreed to give state regulators say over the license extension.
The state passed a law in 2006 requiring Vermont legislators to approve the extension.
and
Wiki oddly has an answer as well
In February 2010, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 against re-licensing of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant after 2012, citing radioactive tritium leaks, misstatements in testimony by plant officials, a cooling tower collapse in 2007, and other problems. There is an absence of a clear plan to replace the electricity generated by the plant, which has caused concern among some businesses in Vermont. Executives of Vermont’s electric utilities have expressed confidence that they will be able to replace the electricity they now get from the plant.
THe ongoing pack of lies out of the disaster in Japan hasn’t helped the least bit.
FR is kinda like the hunting dog that points, you get to use the inital post as a lead and actually search for more information as you wish to know more.
Cool - huh?