As I read the Second Circuit Court decision in the Entergy v. Vermont case, the court finds Act 74 preempted, but not Section 6501 (storage of radioactive material), which it mentions specifically.
The court then goes on to make a big deal of the notion that, in its words: “The post–March 21, 2012, shift of responsibility for approving the storage of spent nuclear fuel generated by Vermont Yankee from the [Public Service] Board to the Vermont Legislature had important ramifications. Decisions of the Board may be appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court. No such review mechanism would exist for the Vermont Legislature's decision not to approve additional spent nuclear fuel storage space.”
But actually, Act 74 shifted approval for pre-2012 storage to the Board, and left post-2012 storage where it was back in 1977: with the legislature. The “shift” the court is describing didn't occur because the Board never had the responsibility for approving post-2012 fuel storage. The Board has explicitly acknowledged this fact.
Indeed, as far as I can tell, approval for additional fuel storage remains today with the Legislature (since we're now post-2012).
Defiance of a duly-constituted governmental authority clearly falls outside of any defensible conception of the “general good of the state;” in fact, the only acceptable response to this behavior is outrage. Just days after appearing before the Public Service Board (PSB), Entergy openly declared to Judge J. Garvan Murtha:
The U.S. Constitution establishes a dual structure of governance: Powers given to Congress are enumerated and specific; those left to the states are not. In the case of wholesale nuclear power plants, including Vermont Yankee, Congress has reserved two “fields” for itself: safety and radiological issues, and rate regulation.