Latest news with #AtomicEnergyActof1954
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Will Trump's Regulatory Reforms Do Enough To Unleash Nuclear Energy?
On Friday, President Donald Trump issued four executive orders aimed at bolstering nuclear power production by addressing supply chain constraints, reforming advanced reactor testing at federal research facilities, and increasing nuclear reactor use on military bases. One of the most substantive orders calls for a "wholesale revision" of regulations governing nuclear power. Specifically, it directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to establish guidelines that would issue final decisions on all new construction and operation applications within 18 months—a process that currently takes years. Under the order, the NRC will work with the Department of Government Efficiency and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to draft these rules, which are due next year. Under an executive order issued in February, executive and independent agencies are required to submit draft and final rules to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (an office within the OMB) for review and approval. This added layer of federal scrutiny could end up slowing down reactor approvals and make the NRC less efficient. It could also run contrary to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which established the NRC and its guidelines. "The NRC is designed to be an independent agency," Adam Stein, director of the Nuclear Energy Innovation Program at the Breakthrough Institute, tells Reason. "The President has control by appointing Commissioners and has the authority to remove Commissioners for cause." However, the Atomic Energy Act says that the commission shall execute the provisions of the law, "not the Commissioners in conjunction with other parts of the Executive branch," he says. Congress has also begun to address permitting delays at the NRC. In 2024, federal lawmakers passed the ADVANCE Act which, among other things, directs the NRC to establish a quicker permitting process for already-approved technologies (18 months to finish safety evaluations and environmental reviews and 25 months to issue a final decision). The agency is expected to issue these guidelines by September, according to the NRC website. However, the legislation stipulates that these guidelines be enforced to "the maximum extent possible." Jack Spencer, a senior energy researcher at The Heritage Foundation, thinks Trump's order could "bring additional accountability to the process." "Any big bureaucracy is going to be resistant to change," he says. "Legislation that basically puts it in their hands to achieve that reform, I think, will often fall short of the sorts of reform that are possible." Spencer thinks that subjecting the proposed reforms to another set of eyes "that will ask hard questions will be helpful in ensuring that real reform ultimately takes hold." This executive order also directs the NRC to reconsider its radiation standards for nuclear power plants and "adopt science-based radiation limits." Federal radiation regulations mandate nuclear power plants to emit levels of radiation that are "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA) and are based on the linear no-threshold model, which assumes that no level of radiation risk is safe to the public. This framework is not scientific (humans are exposed to natural levels of radiation that are higher than those that nuclear power plants emit) and has pushed up costs for power plant operators for no public safety benefit. Spencer argues that fixing this rule is critical for reducing the nuclear industry's regulatory burden. "You can make the NRC the most efficient regulatory agency that has ever existed. And if the basis of its regulatory actions is not grounded in science, then who cares?" "That doesn't mean that you're reducing safety standards. It means that you're making safety standards in line with actual risks," he adds. This directive could face legal scrutiny. Stein, who has been critical of these standards, says "safety standards are almost never implemented through executive order. They usually require the agency to review and 'reconsider' if the standards are appropriate." With the NRC recently reaffirming its model for radiation standards in 2021, there "would need to be new scientific evidence to justify a change now that wouldn't be viewed as arbitrary by a court." Instead of rewriting ALARA standards, Stein suggests that the NRC could adopt radiation thresholds at nuclear power facilities that are defined in the Clean Air Act. Spencer recognizes these standards can't be changed through an executive order. "But it gets the conversation going. And it makes it more OK to talk about it, and it subjects the whole issue to daylight and makes people address it." Trump's order also sets a goal to effectively quadruple America's nuclear energy capacity and build 400 gigawatts of nuclear power by 2050. Stein says this goal "can be a helpful signal to the market," but stating a goal does not "will it into existence." Juliann Edwards, chief development officer at The Nuclear Company, a startup aiming to streamline the deployment of nuclear power plants, agrees. "It's obtainable if you have the right leadership and you have the right behaviors and you're removing a lot of bureaucratic, unnecessary red tape, whether that be the federal level or the state level or through some regulatory regime." America's fleet of commercial nuclear power plants, while still safe and effective, is aging. Most of the reactors were built between 1967 and 1990—although two came online in 2023 and 2024, seven years delayed and $16 billion over budget. As the U.S. halted its construction, China's has accelerated. From 2014 to April 2024, the nation has added over 34 GW of nuclear capacity to its grid. "Nearly every Chinese nuclear project that has entered service since 2010 has achieved construction in 7 years or less," notes the Breakthrough Institute. China currently has 30 nuclear reactors under construction and is exporting its nuclear energy technology to developing nations. Nearly half of the world's nuclear power plant constructions are happening in China. While several factors have played into America's pivot away from nuclear power, including market structures, state bans on the energy source, and the introduction of cheap natural gas, the impact of federal regulations cannot be overstated. "Without doing a refresh and making sure [that] regulations are still applicable, you can get into a point, which we're seeing now, where it's extremely difficult to even cite and permit a piece of land," says Edwards. In the past 20 years, regulations have become so onerous that it takes five to seven years and close to $1 billion just to permit and cite a plot of land for nuclear energy development, according to Edwards. Streamlining the licensing process isn't a safety hazard but rather "a natural iteration that should be a part of our standard process with regulations." Regulations have long inhibited American nuclear energy. While Trump's order is well-intentioned to fix this issue, it is sure to face legal challenges—as many of the president's orders have. Still, the orders may be enough to get a more substantial conversation going. "I think anything that creates pressure toward reform is good," says Spencer. The post Will Trump's Regulatory Reforms Do Enough To Unleash Nuclear Energy? appeared first on
Politico
08-05-2025
- Business
- Politico
Will the real Iran policy stand up?
With help from Nahal Toosi, Joe Gould and Daniel Lippman Subscribe here | Email Robbie | Email Eric The Trump administration isn't shying away from discussing the technical details of its desired nuclear deal with Tehran. But top officials are causing some confusion about where exactly the White House stands on enrichment. On Wednesday, Vice President JD VANCE said Iran can have a civil nuclear program and implied the U.S. could allow Tehran to enrich uranium. 'You can't have the kind of enrichment program that allows you to get to a nuclear weapon, and that's where we draw the line,' Vance said. But that's a bit different from comments by Secretary of State MARCO RUBIO last week that Tehran 'has to walk away' from enrichment and must import enriched uranium for its nuclear power program. A central Republican attack on the Obama-era nuclear deal was that President BARACK OBAMA's negotiating team gave in on enrichment and allowed Tehran to enrich uranium in the final deal, though only to 3.67 percent. It seems the matter is still up for debate. President DONALD TRUMP added Wednesday, 'We haven't made that decision yet,' as to whether Iran could enrich uranium for a civil nuclear program. Meanwhile, Trump has signaled he wants to go after Iran's centrifuges. In an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt on Wednesday, he threatened to bomb Iran if a deal isn't reached, saying, 'There are only two alternatives there: Blow them up nicely or blow them up viciously.' BEHNAM BEN TALEBLU, who leads Iran work at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank in Washington, draws a distinction between the 'political end-state' Trump has outlined and the technical details about how to achieve that. Trump, he argued, has been clear in his desire to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, while leaving the technical details vague. 'The people around him now are trying to fill in the technical contours, and sometimes that looks like it could go one way. Sometimes it looks like it can go another way,' Ben Taleblu said. 'But I would say the political logic of this is the president is keeping his options open.' There are strategic advantages to that ambiguity, says JON ALTERMAN, a senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank in Washington. But it also 'raises the question of whether the administration has a vigorous process in place to evaluate the various proposals being put forward by an Iranian negotiating team with decades of experience,' Alterman argued. The hope in some GOP corners is that the final deal will move toward dismantling the enrichment program and pushing Iran to only import enriched uranium. On Capitol Hill today, Sens. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-S.C.) and TOM COTTON (R-Ark.) argued that Iran should only be granted a '123 agreement' with the United States once its nuclear program is deterred ('123 agreements' refer to section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which allows the U.S. to collaborate with other countries on peaceful nuclear projects). Graham in particular warned that without dismantlement, Iran could remain in a position to get a nuclear weapon. 'I'm okay with Iran having peaceful nuclear power. I'm okay with them building new nuclear power plants. As long as they don't enrich that. The nuclear fuel supply comes from outside of Iran. It will be completely controlled,' Graham said. 'Anything short of that would be a bad deal. Anything short of that, I think, would ensure over time they get a nuclear weapon.' The Inbox GAZA RUNS ON EMPTY: Gaza communal kitchens are shuttering as food supplies run out and hunger worsens in the war-torn enclave. Per Reuters' Nidal Al-Mughrabi and Mahmoud Issa, that includes kitchens run by nongovernmental organization World Central Kitchen. The disruptions will reduce the number of free meals available in Gaza by up to 500,000, and they come as Israel has restricted entry of humanitarian aid to the territory as a way to get Hamas to surrender faster. The news comes as the Israeli government faces concerted pressure from Democrats in Washington to resume aid to the territory. Ninety-six House Democrats wrote to Israeli Ambassador to the United States YECHIEL LEITER, urging the Israeli government to alleviate suffering in Gaza. 'Cutting off or severely restricting aid to Gaza harms Israel's long-term security,' wrote the Democrats in the letter led by Reps. AMI BERA (D-Calif.) and SALUD CARBAJAL (D-Calif.). 'It is a stain on Israel's international reputation, that jeopardizes efforts to normalize relations with neighboring Arab states, who have condemned this action.' Israel appears to be moving toward resuming aid. Special envoy STEVE WITKOFF briefed the U.N. Security Council on a new Israeli plan to resume the distribution of aid to Gaza, per a person familiar with the briefing, who was granted anonymity to freely discuss a sensitive topic, confirming reports from Axios. Israel's security cabinet approved the effort earlier this week. INDIA-PAK DRONE WARFARE: India and Pakistan accused each other today of deploying drones and missiles against each other, as fears mount that a full-on conflict will emerge between the two nuclear powers. Rubio spoke with both India's foreign minister and Pakistan's prime minister today, per State Department readouts of the calls. In those calls, he urged Pakistan to take 'concrete steps to end any support for terrorist groups,' while expressing 'sorrow' for civilian casualties. Rubio also 'emphasized the need for immediate de-escalation' to both countries. ABOUT ANOTHER MIDEAST NUCLEAR DEAL: Saudi Arabia has been pursuing a deal with the United States about establishing its own civilian nuclear deal, and per Reuters, the Trump administration is making the process for Riyadh much easier. Reuters' Pesha Magid reports that the U.S. is no longer demanding that Saudi Arabia recognize Israel as a condition for allowing it to have a civilian nuclear program. It's a major concession from the United States, which previously linked nuclear talks to a wider agreement between Riyadh and Washington to shore up defense ties and bolster Israel's standing in the region. It reflects the Trump administration's desire to keep warm ties with Riyadh. Saudi Arabia will be one of the countries Trump visits on his first major trip abroad next week. And Energy Secretary CHRIS WRIGHT said that the two countries were on a 'pathway' to a nuclear deal during Wright's visit to the country in April. IT'S THURSDAY: Thanks for tuning in to NatSec Daily! This space is reserved for the top U.S. and foreign officials, the lawmakers, the lobbyists, the experts and the people like you who care about how the natsec sausage gets made. Aim your tips and comments at rgramer@ and ebazail@ and follow Robbie and Eric on X @RobbieGramer and @ebazaileimil. While you're at it, follow the rest of POLITICO's global security team: @dave_brown24, @HeidiVogt, @jessicameyers, @RosiePerper, @nahaltoosi, @PhelimKine, @ak_mack, @felschwartz, @connorobrienNH, @paulmcleary, @reporterjoe, @JackDetsch, @samuelskove, @magmill95, @johnnysaks130 and @delizanickel Keystrokes LAWMAKERS AIM TO FILL WORKFORCE HOLES: A bipartisan group of lawmakers is out with legislation aimed at tackling worker shortages in major defense-related fields — such as manufacturing, cybersecurity and logistics — by seeking out early-career military personnel who are medically disqualified from service or people unable to join up for other reasons. New bicameral legislation — introduced by Sens. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D-N.H.) and MIKE ROUNDS (R-S.D.) and Reps. JEN KIGGANS (R-Va.) and JOE COURTNEY (D-Conn.) — would require the Pentagon to create a pathway for service members who are medically disqualified from service during their initial accession or training to enter civilian jobs they're qualified for in DOD and the services. It also would require DOD to provide information to people medically ineligible to join up about employment opportunities in the defense industrial base, cybersecurity, emergency and disaster preparedness and other fields in U.S. national interests. The bill, having the backing of two prominent senators, could make its way into federal law. But it's unclear how the White House stands on the issue, and opposition from Trump could hamstring congressional leadership. The Complex BUDGET BATTLE LOOMS: The Trump administration last week released the broad contours of its defense budget proposal — which suggests keeping base Pentagon spending flat while relying on Republicans' reconciliation push to reach Trump's $1 trillion goal — and lawmakers are already mulling whether that number is enough. Many GOP defense hawks were critical of the plan, arguing the one-time $150 billion increase in their party-line megabill must be paired with significant hikes in the annual Pentagon budget. But top Republican lawmakers aren't in alignment just yet as they wait for a more detailed budget. 'I can't predict what yet what will come out of approps, but we need more information from the services about how the number went from going to be a big increase to essentially being flat funded,' Senate Appropriations Chair SUSAN COLLINS (R-Maine) said. 'And that's quite a difference.' House Armed Services Chair MIKE ROGERS (R-Ala.) said this week he'd prefer a 5 percent increase above inflation, which would bring Pentagon spending to roughly $950 billion before any reconciliation efforts are factored in. There may also be bipartisan support for larger defense budgets. Senate Armed Services top Democrat JACK REED signaled he may back a push for more money. 'We have a lot of challenges. And I think there's places where we can cut at DOD, but we probably have to raise the topline,' Reed said. 'But we have to also pay for it, which we don't do a lot.' On the Hill SFRC DEMS CALL FOUL: Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee boycotted committee proceedings today, accusing Republicans of smashing through standards about nomination hearings. 'Unfortunately, today the majority did not agree to the committee's long-standing rules and traditions to keep the minority properly informed. Therefore, Democrats did not participate in today's proceedings,' said Shaheen, the top Democrat on the committee, in a statement. 'Moving forward, it is my hope this committee can adhere to its long-standing tradition of bipartisanship.' A Democratic committee staffer, granted anonymity to speak freely about committee dynamics, pointed the finger at pressure from the White House. The White House wanted the meeting to go ahead, even though the majority and minority hadn't come to an agreement on the agenda for today's business meetings, the staffer said. The staffer emphasized that a good relationship exists between Shaheen and Chair JIM RISCH (R-Idaho) but that the White House pressure was inappropriate. 'I'm disappointed that my Democratic colleagues chose not to attend our business meeting to fill sorely needed national security positions this morning,' Risch told NatSec Daily. 'Despite their attempts to disrupt this process, the nominees have passed unanimously and will next head to the Senate floor for confirmation. I am cautiously optimistic that the bipartisan work we've done this congress will continue in the coming weeks.' Broadsides SIMION'S SUPPORT: The far-right candidate who came in first in Romania's presidential election is saying he won't back further military aid to Ukraine, as fears grow that ascendant far-right parties in Europe could undermine continental support for Kyiv three years into Russia's invasion. In an interview with our colleague Max Griera, front-runner GEORGE SIMION said he personally wouldn't vote in favor of further aid to Ukraine, arguing that Kyiv hasn't treated the country's minority Romanian population well. 'They are behaving like Russians in many ways,' Simion said. 'So, the first thing I must do is solve these problems with the Ukrainian side because we as Romanians contributed a lot in the war effort.' That said, Simion said he'd defer to the United States and 'consult in defense matters with the American side.' He explained, 'I will take the same stances and will support whatever the Trump administration will do because they are the leaders of NATO and, from the security and defense point of view, the Americans didn't disappoint us.' Such a policy would be a big reversal from one of Kyiv's biggest allies. Romania hosted training camps for Ukrainian fighter pilots and was a major provider of support for its neighbor. Transitions — Trump has nominated KIRSTEN DAVIES to serve as the top tech role at the Defense Department, according to a notice sent to Congress on Tuesday. Davies held top cybersecurity roles at companies like Estée Lauder and was most recently the chief information security officer at consumer packaged goods company Unilever. She also held cyber roles at tech company Hewlett-Packard and Siemens. — ERICA LONERGAN has joined the Foundation for Defense of Democracies' Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation as an adjunct fellow. She was previously a lead writer of the 2023 U.S. Defense Department Cyber Strategy. — STEPHANIE SUTTON is joining the Center for American Progress as chief operating officer. She most recently was acting assistant secretary of the Bureau of Global Public Affairs at the State Department. — FRANCISCO BENCOSME has joined the U.S.-China Business Council as government affairs director. He was previously senior policy adviser and China policy lead for the United States Agency for International Development. —The Trump administration has nominated MATTHEW ANDERSON to serve as the next NASA deputy administrator, according to a Senate notice. Anderson currently works as an executive at government contractor CACI and serves as the chief growth officer of the Space Force Association, a nonprofit, according to his LinkedIn. He was previously an Air Force pilot. — Academy Securities added retired Lt. Gen. LEWIS CRAPAROTTA to its advisory board and geopolitical intelligence group. — AI-powered training firm C2 Technologies named former Navy Secretary CARLOS DEL TORO to its advisory board. — AeroVironment promoted CHURCH HUTTON to chief growth officer from senior vice president for government relations and communications. He is a former SAC-D staff member and executive at Mercury Systems. — KELLY MAGSAMEN, the former chief of staff to then-Defense Secretary LLOYD AUSTIN, will lead the Asia Group's newly launched Indo-Pacific Defense Incubator initiative. — Retired Gen. MIKE MINIHAN, the former Air Mobility Command chief and head of Mavericks Advisors, joined Radia as a strategic adviser. What to Read — Maria Tsvetkova, Polina Nikolskaya, Anton Zverev and Ryan McNeill, Reuters: Russia building major new explosives facility as Ukraine war drags on — Samuel Charap and Sergey Radchenko, Foreign Affairs: Why Peace Talks Fail in Ukraine — Scott Calvert, The Wall Street Journal: Locals Fight Back After Naval Academy Removes Books in DEI Cull Tomorrow Today — George Washington University Elliott School of International Affairs, 10 a.m.: The Legacy of Corruption: Karim Massimov and the Nazarbayev System — The Center for Strategic and International Studies, 10 a.m.: Insights for Future Conflicts from the Russia-Ukraine War — Johns Hopkins University Gupta-Klinsky India Institute, 1 p.m.: India Conference 2025 Thanks to our editors, Heidi Vogt and Emily Lussier, who confuse us with their unclear negotiation tactics. CORRECTION: Wednesday's newsletter misstated Matt Pearl's title at Jenner & Block. He is 'of counsel' at Jenner & Block.
Yahoo
14-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Why We're Suing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission—and Still Believe in Nuclear Regulation
At Deep Fission, we're taking a radically different approach to nuclear energy: smaller, safer, faster to deploy—and located a mile underground. By placing reactors deep beneath the Earth's surface, we use the natural containment of billions of tons of bedrock to dramatically improve safety and cut costs. COMMENTARY Liz Muller, CEO and co-founder of Deep Fission We believe in regulation. We also believe in common sense. That's why we've joined the states of Utah, Texas, Florida, Louisiana, the Arizona State Legislature, and fellow reactor developers Last Energy and Valar Atomics in a federal lawsuit aimed at modernizing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) outdated licensing regime. This isn't about avoiding oversight. It's about unlocking the energy the country urgently needs—and removing the regulatory barriers that are stopping us from doing it. We are entering a new era of energy demand, and it's happening now. Data centers, artificial intelligence (AI), re-industrialization, and large-scale electrification are all converging to push our grid to its limits. According to recent estimates, U.S. electricity demand could rise as much in the next 15 years as it did in the previous 50. We are simply not prepared for that. Despite over a decade of serious investment in advanced nuclear, not a single advanced reactor is commercially operating in the U.S. The only new plant to come online recently—Plant Vogtle's Units 3 and 4—took 15 years and cost more than $35 billion, far more than originally projected. While it's an achievement in its own right, that pace and price point are nowhere near what we need to meet this moment. Meanwhile, today's regulatory process all but guarantees more of the same. Even with planned fee reductions, the NRC's system remains slow, expensive, and ill-suited for the new generation of safe, modular reactors designed to be simpler and faster to deploy. Let me be clear: the NRC is the gold standard for nuclear safety. We fully support its mission, and we intend to meet and exceed its standards. But when the process itself becomes the bottleneck—when it takes longer to license a safe, next-gen reactor than it does to build a factory or develop a whole new technology platform—then something's broken. And it's not just a bureaucratic problem. It's a national security problem. We're facing a choice: build the energy infrastructure this country needs—or fall behind. Here's the deeper issue: the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 was written with nuance. It said that a federal license is only required for nuclear facilities that pose a risk to public health or national security. That's a reasonable threshold. But since 1956, the NRC has applied that requirement to every reactor—regardless of scale, design, or risk profile. That blanket approach no longer makes sense. At Deep Fission, our underground reactors are fundamentally different. By design, they eliminate many of the traditional risks associated with nuclear power. We're not asking for an exemption from safety—we're asking for a modern framework that recognizes technological progress and allows low-risk systems to move through the process with appropriate speed and scrutiny. Other countries are moving fast. We can too. If the U.S. wants to remain competitive—if we want to power AI, industry, and a low-carbon future—we need to get serious about deployment. That means making the hard choices, fixing the broken systems, and rethinking how we regulate in a way that preserves safety and supports innovation. We don't have another decade to wait. We filed this lawsuit because we believe in nuclear power—and because we believe the United States can still lead. We believe the original intent of the law had it right. And we believe that with a smarter, more adaptive approach to regulation, we can meet this moment with clean, safe, affordable energy that's ready to scale. Let's modernize the system. Let's build the future. — is CEO and co-founder of Deep Fission.
Saudi Gazette
13-04-2025
- Politics
- Saudi Gazette
Saudi Arabia and US to sign civil nuclear energy cooperation agreement
Saudi Gazette report RIYADH — US Energy Secretary Chris Wright announced that the United States and Saudi Arabia will sign an agreement on long-term cooperation in civil nuclear energy and technology. Addressing a press conference in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, on Sunday, Wright said that further details on nuclear cooperation between Washington and Riyadh will be announced later this year, according to Reuters. The US Secretary of State touched on the "123 Agreement," saying, "There will certainly be a 123 nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia." The "123 Agreement," part of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, establishes peaceful nuclear cooperation within a legally binding framework between the United States and its partners, establishing the foundation for long-term strategic civil nuclear partnerships globally. U.S. law generally requires a 123 Agreement to be in place before licensing significant exports of U.S.-origin nuclear materials such as nuclear reactor fuel and equipment such as nuclear reactors and key components to another partner, according to the U.S. State Department. The US Secretary of Energy arrived in Riyadh on Saturday, coming from the UAE, at the start of a tour of the region that will also take him to Qatar.
Yahoo
05-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court to consider nuclear waste storage dispute
By Blake Brittain and John Kruzel WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court is set on Wednesday to consider whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has the authority to license nuclear waste storage facilities amid objections brought by the states of Texas and New Mexico as well as the oil industry. The U.S. government and a company that was awarded a license by the NRC, the federal agency that regulates nuclear energy in the United States, to operate a facility in western Texas have appealed a lower court's ruling declaring this storage arrangement unlawful. See for yourself — The Yodel is the go-to source for daily news, entertainment and feel-good stories. By signing up, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, showed skepticism toward the authority of federal regulatory agencies in several major rulings during former President Joe Biden's administration. The NRC case is being argued at a time when President Donald Trump's administration has taken aim at various federal agencies in his campaign to downsize and overhaul the U.S. government and fire thousands of workers. The NRC issued a license in 2021 to Interim Storage Partners to build a nuclear waste storage facility in Andrews County in Texas, near the New Mexico border. The NRC has issued such licenses to private companies since 1980. A proposal to permanently store the nation's spent nuclear fuel at a federal facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada has been stalled following decades of opposition in that state. The Interim Storage Partners license was challenged by Fasken Land and Minerals, a Texas-based oil and gas extraction organization, and the nonprofit Permian Basin Coalition of Land and Royalty Owners and Operators. Texas and New Mexico later joined the challenge, arguing the facility posed environmental risks to the states. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the NRC lacked authority to issue the license based on a law called the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Biden's administration appealed the ruling at the Supreme Court and Trump's administration continued the appeal. Biden's Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued in a December brief that the 5th Circuit ruling would "entirely gut" the Atomic Energy Act because nuclear power plants cannot operate without creating spent fuel that must be stored somewhere. The Trump administration's acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris told the justices in February that the 5th Circuit decision could "deprive the commission of authority to license the private storage of spent nuclear fuel in any location" and "grind the operations of nuclear reactors to a halt." The U.S. government also argues that the plaintiffs lacked authority to bring the lawsuit because they failed to participate in the agency's adjudication process. Texas and New Mexico said the NRC had no authority to issue the license, and that Congress "has already legislated a solution to the nation's nuclear-waste problem: permanent storage in Yucca Mountain." A ruling in the case is expected by the end of June.
