The Biggest Impediment to Kathy Hochul's Pro-Nuclear Plan for New York Is the Government
On Monday, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) announced that she was directing "the state's public electric utility to add at least 1 gigawatt of new nuclear-power generation to its aging fleet of reactors," reports The Wall Street Journal. This is enough to power roughly 1 million homes. The state's three nuclear power plants generated 22 percent of New York's electricity in 2023, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Hochul, who provided few specifics or a timeline of her plan, said that the New York Power Authority (the second largest government-owned utility in the country) will "develop and construct" the facility "either alone or in partnership with private entities."
While Hochul's announcement may normalize support for the energy source in the United States, her idea to have the government lead the way could thwart the plan's success. It's also a surprising strategy given New York's history of using government coercion to shut down the energy source.
In 2021, Indian Point Energy Center, a two-gigawatt nuclear power plant less than 50 miles from New York City, was shut down under pressure from then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, who said having a nuclear power plant that close to a city defied "basic sanity." After the closure of the plant, which met about a quarter of NYC's electricity needs with carbon-free power, the state's carbon dioxide emissions climbed as more natural gas was brought on to replace Indian Point's energy production.
Hochul, who was Cuomo's lieutenant governor at the time, has since opposed the closure of the plant. "Let's be honest. In doing that, we turned off one quarter of New York City's power and it was almost all clean energy," she said on Monday.
New York isn't the only state whose government has nixed nuclear energy.
Driven by fears of waste and radiation, several states implemented moratoriums or restrictions on the power source beginning in the 1970s, including New York, which has banned nuclear power plant construction on parts of Long Island. The bans hollowed out the workforce and domestic supply chain of nuclear power, which are two factors that were, at least partially, responsible for the project delays and cost overruns at Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia, America's most recently built nuclear power plants.
Entrusting the state to lead the build-out of a multi-billion-dollar project also ignores the most obvious government-imposed impediment to nuclear power: regulations. From complex licensing and permitting processes to strict requirements on what material can be used, regulations drive up the cost of nuclear power plant construction for no benefit to public health and safety.
To her credit, Hochul recognizes this. "Why does it take a decade [to build a nuclear power plant]?" she told the Journal. "That's why no one is doing it; the barriers are too high." Hochul also said that she has lobbied the Department of Government Efficiency to focus on streamlining operations at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. These advocacy efforts may be paying off; in May, President Donald Trump signed four executive orders to bolster nuclear power by streamlining federal regulations.
Nuclear power, which is clean, safe, and reliable, has long been shuttered or outlawed entirely by blue states. Hochul's announcement could destigmatize the energy source nationally, but the success of her plan will depend on how much the government is willing to get out of the way.
The post The Biggest Impediment to Kathy Hochul's Pro-Nuclear Plan for New York Is the Government appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
15 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
U.S. will get a 15% cut of Nvidia and AMD chip sales to China under a new, unusual agreement
NEW YORK — Nvidia and AMD have agreed to share 15% of their revenues from chip sales to China with the U.S. government, as part of a deal to secure export licenses for the semiconductors. The Trump administration halted the sale of advanced computer chips to China in April over national security concerns, but Nvidia and AMD revealed in July that Washington would allow them to resume sales of the H20 and MI308 chips, which are used in artificial intelligence development. President Trump confirmed the terms of the unusual arrangement in a Monday press conference while noting that he originally wanted 20% of the sales revenue when Nvidia asked to sell the 'obsolete' H20 chip to China. The president credited Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang for negotiating him down to 15%. 'So we negotiated a little deal. So he's selling a essentially old chip,' Trump said. Nvidia did not comment about the specific details of the agreement or its quid pro quo nature, but said they would adhere to the export rules laid out by the administration. 'We follow rules the U.S. government sets for our participation in worldwide markets. While we haven't shipped H20 to China for months, we hope export control rules will let America compete in China and worldwide,' Nvidia wrote in a statement to the AP. 'America cannot repeat 5G and lose telecommunication leadership. America's AI tech stack can be the world's standard if we race.' AMD did not immediately reply to a request for comment. The top Democrat on a House panel focusing on competition with China raised concerns over the reported agreement, calling it 'a dangerous misuse of export controls that undermines our national security.' Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, the ranking member of the House Select Committee on China, said he would seek answers about the legal basis for this arrangement and demand full transparency from the administration. 'Our export control regime must be based on genuine security considerations, not creative taxation schemes disguised as national security policy,' he said. 'Chip export controls aren't bargaining chips, and they're not casino chips either. We shouldn't be gambling with our national security to raise revenue.' Derek Scissors, senior fellow and China expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, questioned the constitutionality of the deal and also warned against risking national security for revenue. 'There's no precedent for this, probably because export taxes are unconstitutional, ' said Derek Scissors, senior fellow and China expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. 'They call it a fee, but 15% of sales revenue is about a standard a tax as it comes. For this reason, I don't think the 'arrangement' is at all durable. '' 'If it were to last, it has two possible implications. First, there's a possible export tax that high-profile companies and goods must consider. Or the tax only applies in exceptional situations, such as changing export controls. Then we'd risk national security for the sake of tax revenue, which is effectively the same as cutting the defense budget,' Scissors said. Back in July, Nvidia argued that tight export controls around their chip sales would cost the company an extra $5.5 billion. They've argued that such limits hinder U.S. competition in a sector in one of the world's largest markets for technology, and have also warned that U.S. export controls could end up pushing other countries toward China's AI technology. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CNBC in July that the renewed sale of Nvidia's chips in China was linked to a trade agreement made between the two countries on rare earth magnets. Restrictions on sales of advanced chips to China have been central to the AI race between the world's two largest economic powers, but such controls are also controversial. Proponents argue that these restrictions are necessary to slow China down enough to allow U.S. companies to keep their lead. Meanwhile, opponents say the export controls have loopholes — and could still spur innovation. The emergence of China's DeepSeek AI chatbot in January particularly renewed concerns over how China might use advanced chips to help develop its own AI capabilities. Associated Press writers Josh Boak, Shawn Chen, Didi Tang and Paul Wiseman contributed to the reporting.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Ousted FDA vaccine chief Vinay Prasad is returning to the agency
Vinay Prasad smiles for a portrait. Uncredited/Associated Press A longtime a critic of FDA's standards for approving medicines, Prasad briefly ordered the maker of a gene therapy for Duchenne's muscular dystrophy to halt shipments after two patient deaths. But that action triggered pushback from the families of boys with the fatal condition and libertarian supporters of increased access to experimental medicines. Advertisement Prasad's decision to pause the therapy was criticized by The Wall Street Journal editorial board, former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum and others. The FDA swiftly reversed its decision suspending the therapy's use. But Prasad has had the backing of FDA Commissioner Marty Makary and health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who have both called for scrutinizing the use of COVID-19 vaccines. Under Prasad, the FDA restricted the approval of two new COVID-19 shots from vaccine makers Novavax and Moderna and set stricter testing requirements for future approvals. Advertisement
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Why Colorado is rethinking its AI law
AROUND THE NATION Colorado Gov. Jared Polis signed first-in-the-nation legislation to regulate artificial intelligence last year. Now the Democrat is calling state lawmakers back to Denver next week to ask them to delay for a year the law's implementation, currently scheduled for February. The big issue: the cost of implementation. But Polis is also having second thoughts about states independently regulating AI. Earlier this year, he backed a plan by Republican lawmakers in Washington to place a moratorium on new state AI laws. The Colorado legislation will bolster consumer protections when AI is used to make key health care-related decisions, and require developers and deployers to address algorithmic bias based on reproductive health, genetic information and other data. Developers must also make disclosures about AI systems that make high-risk decisions. Why it matters: The political climate for AI regulations has significantly changed from May 2024, when Polis first signed the law, our Alfred Ng reports. The Trump administration's AI Action Plan withholds federal funding from states with 'burdensome regulations,' even though Republicans ultimately decided not to include a moratorium on state AI laws in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act they passed last month. It's unlikely the Colorado law will dramatically change during the legislature's special session, but it's expected to spark another round of lobbying by tech groups that oppose the law. 'With Colorado now facing a billion-dollar budget shortfall, this is a moment when lawmakers should be inviting innovation, not driving it away from the state,' Kouri Marshall, director of state government relations for the tech industry group Chamber of Progress, said in a statement. The backstory: In the lead-up to Polis' decision, tech industry advocates pleaded with him to veto the measure. They argued the law would launch a patchwork of state rules that would make compliance difficult and that Congress is better suited to regulate. They succeeded in convincing Connecticut's Democratic governor, Ned Lamont, to oppose a similar bill his legislature had passed. At the same time, consumer advocates are concerned that AI systems could harm patients if bias is entrenched in care or if the tools make diagnostic mistakes. They have lately urged lawmakers to do more. WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care. Lithium depletion could play a role in causing Alzheimer's disease, a new study in the journal Nature says, raising hope that restoring it to the brain could stave off memory loss. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Carmen Paun at cpaun@ Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: CarmenP.82, RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. AROUND THE AGENCIES The National Institutes of Health official who oversaw grant review and the groups who evaluate NIH grant applications, is leaving the agency at the end of the month. NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya said Noni Byrnes, who directs the agency's Center for Scientific Review, is retiring from federal service after nearly 25 years at the agency. Byrnes had served as the center's director since 2019. During her time there, Byrnes, an expert in analytical chemistry, implemented frameworks and systems for evaluating quality, integrity and fairness in grant review. 'Most recently, she oversaw the HHS and NIH effort to centralize the peer review of applications and proposals for all the agency's grants, cooperative agreements, and research and development contracts,' Bhattacharya's announcement said. Byrnes' other efforts included expanding the advisory councils and pushing to diversify the pool of peer reviewers and study sections to include researchers of different races, genders, scientific backgrounds and experience. 'You don't want bureaucrats or government officials making these decisions,' Byrnes told Chemical and Engineering News in 2019, referring to the grant review process. Why it matters: The NIH's peer review process is in the midst of an overhaul. In March, the NIH said it would centralize what had previously been handled by subject matter experts at individual institutes and centers. This spring, the NIH moved to remove swaths of outside experts from advisory boards that evaluate agency research. And last week, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that increases the administration's control over research grants that the government funds. According to the order, agencies shouldn't fund research that uses race as selection criteria, denies that sex is binary or suggests that sex can be changed, encourages or subsidizes illegal immigration, compromises public safety or promotes anti-American values. The order tasks agency officials with defining those terms. What's next: The Center for Scientific Review's deputy director, Bruce Reed, will serve as the center's acting director.
