Latest news with #LastEnergy
E&E News
04-08-2025
- Business
- E&E News
NRC lawsuit could hand states power over advanced reactors
A high-stakes lawsuit against the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission could force the agency to relinquish some of its authority over licensing smaller nuclear reactors to individual states, at a time when the NRC's role is already facing challenges. The complaint, originally brought by nuclear developer Last Energy and the states of Texas and Utah, asserts that the NRC does not have licensing authority over some nuclear microreactors and small modular reactors, or SMRs. If that were the case, states would likely assume oversight of such reactors, barring further congressional action. It alleges that the NRC's regulations have stifled innovation and development in the nuclear industry at a time when growing electricity demand is fueling a surge in support for nuclear energy. A settlement could be in the works. Advertisement 'Although the case is still in its early stages, a successful legal challenge could significantly reshape the regulatory landscape for some reactors in the United States,' said Judi Greenwald, president and CEO of the Nuclear Innovation Alliance. 'A patchwork of state-level oversight would hinder the commercialization of new reactors at home and abroad.' In a statement, the NRC said it had 'no comment on ongoing litigation' but highlighted that it was reviewing three advanced nuclear construction permits. 'The NRC remains aligned with our interagency partners in efficiently regulating and enabling the deployment of nuclear power for America's energy security while upholding the highest standards of public health, safety, and environmental protection,' the NRC said. The agency has been in upheaval since President Donald Trump issued a slew of executive orders May 23 aimed at expediting nuclear safety assessments. Shortly after issuing the orders, the Trump administration informed the NRC that it would be expected to grant 'rubber stamp' approval to new reactors already tested by the departments of Energy or Defense and sent an email firing Democratic Commissioner Christopher Hanson. Michael Buschbacher, a partner at law firm Boyden Gray and lead counsel for Last Energy, Deep Fission and Valar Atomics in the lawsuit, contends that the fears of a chaotic regulatory environment are unfounded. He says that under the plaintiffs' reading of the law, only designs that fall within new NRC-approved safe reactor parameters would skirt the agency's licensing review. 'No commercial reactor can get away from the federal licensing requirements if it is not safe. And so that, to me, solves almost all of this concern,' he said. 'In terms of implementing it and 'Do we really want 50 regulators?' I mean, we already do have that. All kinds of rules apply to all power generation, and different states have different approaches to that. But we're not adding a new requirement for states to figure out whether a reactor is safe — NRC will still have to do that,' Buschbacher continued, though he acknowledged that some changes to federal nuclear materials regulation might also be necessary. In any event, diverse state-level approaches could potentially foster regulatory innovation, Buschbacher said, by creating a 'race to the top.' As for what a new NRC regulation should say, 'the point is not that it has to adopt this or that specific threshold or methodology,' he said. 'Congress did give the NRC authority to figure out what the exact line should be and why, but it didn't let them just ignore that and say that everything falls under their licensing authority.' Startups Valar Atomics and Deep Fission, the states of Florida and Louisiana, and the Arizona Legislature joined the lawsuit in the spring. The NRC originally said that the lawsuit was frivolous and violated the federal rules of civil procedure. But in June the NRC joined the plaintiffs in asking the court to extend a stay on the proceeding until Sept. 29 to pursue 'a mutually agreeable resolution that could avoid or limit further litigation in this case.' The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted the motion on June 30. In May, shortly after being detailed to the NRC, DOGE representative Adam Blake had a series of introductory meetings with NRC commissioners and senior staff in which the lawsuit was raised, a person who was present at one of the meetings, granted anonymity to speak about a private conversation, told POLITICO's E&E News. 'He thought it was part of his mandate to bring the parties together to facilitate a settlement of that lawsuit,' this person said. 'The fact that Blake was there to settle the lawsuit suggests that it was going to be expected for NRC to give them some of what they wanted. Otherwise, why would you settle?' It was not clear if Blake continued to push the agency toward settling the case after the initial meetings. He did not respond to a request for comment. Legal arguments The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 grants the NRC licensing authority over commercial reactors that use fissile nuclear material 'in such quantity as to be of significance to the common defense and security, or in such manner as to affect the health and safety of the public.' The plaintiffs argue that many microreactors and SMRs, like Last Energy's 20-megawatt design, fall outside the NRC's licensing authority because they use only small amounts of uranium and have passive safety features. The NRC's predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission, 'issued a rule in 1956 that just completely ignored this and said that anything, any civilian commercial reactor, regardless of design or anything else, has to get a construction and operation license,' Buschbacher said. 'Our argument is: Congress drew a line, the agency ignored it. And we brought a suit to say, 'No, you can't ignore what Congress told you to do,'' he said. The Department of Justice, representing the NRC, responded in March with a motion to dismiss the case. The defense's arguments centered on civil procedure, contending that only federal appeals courts can review NRC rules under the Hobbs Act, that the plaintiffs' claims are time-barred by the six-year statute of limitations under the Administrative Procedure Act, and that plaintiffs should have worked 'cooperatively with the NRC to address their objections to this longstanding and unremarkable rule by petitioning the agency to change it.' The states and startups counter that the Supreme Court's ruling in Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System last year allows parties newly injured by existing laws to pursue legal challenges. The complaint is one of the first to cite the Supreme Court decision. DOJ's response ventured a brief attack on the complaint's merits, too, arguing that Congress implicitly acknowledged NRC jurisdiction when it passed the bipartisan 2024 ADVANCE Act, which imposes 'regulatory requirements for micro-reactors' on the commission and instructs it to streamline the permitting process for advanced reactors. What exactly a settlement might look like is difficult to predict, said a former senior official with the NRC, granted anonymity due to connections to the parties. 'I think a settlement would likely be an effort to try to get the NRC to have an expedited, simplified process for the ultimate licensing of microreactors,' the former official said. 'It could also potentially include some opportunity for state inspection activities.' One possibility could be that the commission may be close to completing a revised regulation that addresses the key issues raised in the lawsuit, said Keith Bradley, a partner at the firm Squire Patton Boggs. 'It is quite conceivable that the NRC is saying, 'We have something that's really close to done, just let us finish it,'' he said. The agency could also have a 'real desire to change' its regulations and may be willing to accept a court order partially vacating the existing rule, Bradley said. An industry divided The nuclear industry is split over the lawsuit's push, and the startup plaintiffs have had little experience with the NRC. Deep Fission has been in pre-application proceedings with the NRC since May 2024, and Last Energy only engaged with the agency in spring 2025. Valar Atomics has still not contacted or met with the commission. Valar CEO Isaiah Taylor defended his company's participation in the lawsuit. 'If you believe that the jurisdiction is wrong, why would you engage in the process?' Taylor told POLITICO's E&E News in an interview. 'Our standing comes from the fact that we're trying to build reactors here in the United States. We have active customers, we have a site in Utah, and the NRC is wrongly holding jurisdiction over that project. It would be inconsistent of us to be in an NRC process given that,' he continued. But SMR developers that have longer records of interacting with the NRC tend to oppose the lawsuit's goals. 'For new reactors to be deployed at a meaningful scale, it will be vital to maintain public trust in the regulator,' said one nuclear company with more than five years of engagement history with the NRC. 'A patchwork regulatory environment with inconsistent codes from state to state would present a challenge to developers and reduce efficiency at a time when we should be expediting processes.' The company, granted anonymity due to fear of political retribution, went on to defend the NRC. The agency's review timelines have generally shortened in recent years. 'As the nuclear industry evolves, the regulator must modernize in parallel. In recent years we have seen that licensing advanced reactors with the NRC under existing frameworks is possible. We believe the agency is capable of continued innovation,' the company said. NuScale Power waited 41 months to receive a design certification in 2020, but it waited only 22 months to get a certificate for its new design in 2025. Part of the reduction in time is attributed to similar features in the two designs. Greenwald with the Nuclear Innovation Alliance thinks that a successful lawsuit would burden both nuclear companies and states. 'This fragmented approach would undermine the federal government's and plaintiffs' shared goal of enabling the efficient and streamlined deployment of advanced reactors. It would also be very expensive and inefficient to have states attempt to duplicate NRC's highly technical expertise,' she said. Reporter Niina H. Farah contributed.
Business News Wales
30-07-2025
- Business
- Business News Wales
£300m South Wales Micro-Nuclear Scheme Advances Towards Licensing Target
A technology developer which plans to deploy micro-nuclear plants in Bridgend has announced that its power plant design has successfully completed a Preliminary Design Review (PDR). Washington DC-based Last Energy becomes the first nuclear developer to complete a PDR in the UK. The review was conducted by the UK's nuclear regulators the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), the Environment Agency, and Natural Resources Wales (NRW). The completion of the review means that the firm's £300 million project in South Wales has taken a further step towards its 2027 licensing target. Prosiect Egni Glan Llynfi will see the micro modular 20 MWe nuclear power plants built on a vacant site that housed the coal-fired Llynfi Power Station from 1951 to 1977. The plants will deliver power to mid-size manufacturers throughout the region. Last Energy aims to deliver the first plant in Bridgend by 2027, contingent on the licensing and planning processes. The regulators' joint summary report, which confirms successful completion of the review in June 2025, marks a significant development in Last Energy's efforts to deploy the first commercial microreactor in the UK, the company said. Completion of the process follows over a year of Early Engagement with the regulators and five months of PDR-specific review, which included design workshops and technical submissions across selected topic areas. 'As the first micronuclear developer to complete a Preliminary Design Review, we applaud the UK's nuclear regulators for establishing a clear, flexible and direct regulatory pathway for micro-nuclear technologies to engage in nuclear licensing and environmental permitting,' said Michael Jenner, CEO of Last Energy UK. 'Unlocking nuclear power at scale is essential to decarbonising the industrial economy and driving economic growth across the UK. Completing our PDR has provided essential guidance to efficiently undertake and complete licensing processes, positioning Last Energy to deliver the UK's first commercial microreactor.' The company has previously said it would not require public funding for the development and estimates an overall capital investment of £300 million in equipment, services, and other development-related activities. It said it plans to source at least 10% of its needs from South Wales suppliers, translating to a £30 million local economic investment – not including business rates collected by Bridgend County Council – and at least 100 full-time jobs. Taken together, the plants' annual output will be equivalent to the amount of energy consumed by approximately 244,000 UK homes per year, alleviating grid restraints and contributing to the Welsh Government's 2030 net zero targets as well as national climate goals, Last Energy said. According to the regulators' summary report, Last Energy's target to receive a site licence decision by December 2027 is achievable contingent on the company delivering its submissions to the standard and schedule agreed in the PDR. The PDR process covered three topic areas: organisational plans and arrangements, environment and decommissioning, and safety analysis process and maturity, and included review of Last Energy's fully-passive, walk-away-safe design approach.
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The U.S. Needs More Nuclear Power To Fuel the Artificial Intelligence Boom
AI is bringing enormous benefits to consumers and businesses. It is also bringing significant strain to the power grid. Some researchers estimate that one ChatGPT query requires the energy equivalent of lighting a lightbulb for 20 minutes and 10 times as much electricity as a single Google search. Goldman Sachs projects that AI will increase data center power demand by 160 percent nationwide through 2030. The Department of Energy also expects data centers' energy use to balloon. A December 2024 report forecasts that cloud computing will account for as much as 12 percent of the nation's annual energy use by 2028—up from 4.4 percent in 2023. Virginia, California, and Texas will each serve as a "primary hub" for both small- and large-scale cloud data centers, according to the Energy Department. Texas is the fastest-growing consumer of electricity in the nation, according to the Energy Information Administration. In 2024, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)—which manages about 90 percent of the state's grid—said electricity demands could nearly double by 2030 as data centers and cryptocurrency grow and as oil operations in the Permian Basin begin to run on electricity instead of diesel. In March, ERCOT said it has received requests for 99 gigawatts (GW) of new connections—enough to power almost 25 million homes—from large power users (including data centers) in the past year. The state will need to add the energy equivalent of 30 nuclear power plants by 2030 to meet demand, reports Bloomberg. Last Energy is preparing to deliver 30 such reactors—microreactors, that is. In February, the company announced plans to build 30 of its 20-megawatt reactors in Haskell County, Texas, to service data centers across the state. The site is conveniently located 200 miles west of Dallas, where data centers are expected to add 43 GW of demand to the grid through 2029. The company has filed for a grid connection with ERCOT, which takes about 18–30 months to complete, according to the regulator. Last Energy is also in the process of applying for an Early Site Permit with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Once obtained, the company will have a 10–20 year window to build its reactors. This will be Last Energy's first operational project in the United States. Despite being an American company, Last Energy has focused on growing its business abroad because of stringent federal regulations. The developer sued the NRC in December 2024, challenging an agency rule requiring all nuclear power–producing entities—including those that do not generate enough electricity to turn on a lightbulb—to obtain an operating license from the commission before turning on. Texas isn't the only state turning to nuclear power to meet its data center demand. In Virginia, where data centers could double the state's power demands by 2034, Amazon is partnering with Dominion Energy to develop three new nuclear energy projects. Three Mile Island in Middletown, Pennsylvania, is restarting to provide energy to Microsoft's data servers. The power plant was shut down in 2019. These efforts will only be as cost-effective and efficient as regulations allow. But the renewed interest in clean and reliable nuclear power could allow the U.S. to make advancements in AI with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. The post The U.S. Needs More Nuclear Power To Fuel the AI Boom appeared first on
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Louisiana wants to pave the way for small nuclear reactors, an untested technology in the U.S.
A small modular nuclear reactor is shown in front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. (Photo courtesy of Last Energy) The Louisiana Legislature is working to speed up the permitting process to allow small nuclear reactors to be added to the state's portfolio of energy production. Although the technology is not yet in use in the United States, proponents see it as a low-emissions option to provide electricity in areas that struggle to get reliable power. Energy analysts say there are reasons why what are known as small modular reactors (SMRs) have not caught on yet in America – chief among them is the cost. Senate Bill 127, by Sen. Adam Bass, R-Bossier City, would allow the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality to create an expedited environmental permitting process for building small modular reactors. That would position the state to be ready when the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows the projects to move forward. The bill advanced out of the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality and heads next to the full Senate. 'You have companies in states like Texas that are starting that process,' LDEQ Secretary Aurelia Skipwith Giacometto said Tuesday at the State Capitol after the Senate committee hearing on Bass' bill. Supporters of the proposal hope SMRs can be used by not only utilities but also industrial facilities that need an exclusive, on-site power source. Gov. Jeff Landry has included nuclear energy as part of an 'all of the above' approach he supports to meet the state's power needs. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, small modular reactors range from one-tenth to one-fourth the size of a standard nuclear reactor. They can produce between 10-300 megawatts of power. That's compared to an estimated 2,142 megawatts Entergy reports its two nuclear plants in Louisiana generate combined. The cost to build small nuclear reactors is steep. A study last year from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis found the cost to construct an SMR averaged $25,000 per kilowatt generated as of 2023 – more than double the rate in 2015. For a 10-megawatt reactor – the power level for the smallest SMR – the total cost comes to about $250 million. Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that in order for utilities to buy into small nuclear reactors, it will take government subsidies and tax credits to make the cost worthwhile. 'If you're trying to make them smaller, they're gonna be less economic unless you come up with some way to compensate for this penalty for making them smaller,' Lyman told the Illuminator in a phone interview. '… There's no one in the world that's ordering SMRs in the amounts that would be needed to start to see the benefit of central manufacturing.' Lyman noted there are two current applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for new nuclear reactors in the U.S, and both 'are half-funded by the federal government and the other half funded by rich people like Bill Gates.' 'So there's actually a lot less going on that meets the eye, and again, the bottom line is cost …' he said. 'Utilities and users know how expensive these things are.' After a strong of nuclear power plant shutdowns in recent decades, there has been a push to bring them back online to address increasing energy needs. This momentum has carried over to introduce SMRs in the United States. Gartias said there is industry interest in placing SMRs near petrochemical plants to reduce their carbon footprint by using nuclear power to run the plants and offset some of their emissions. Although nuclear plants do not produce carbon dioxide, their critics note their environmental impact in the form of uranium mining and waste storage. The Alliance for Affordable Energy, a Louisiana-based consumer advocacy group, is not taking a stance on the Bass bill but wants more answers on who will pay for small modular reactor projects – and whether those costs will be passed down to ratepayers. 'We stopped building nuclear for a long time, but now there are really vague and not very recent examples of us building nuclear on time and on budget,' Jackson Voss, the alliance's climate policy coordinator, told the Illuminator. When asked by committee member Sen. Patrick Connick, R-Marrero, what would happen to the waste created by small modular reactors, Bass did not give a clear answer. He said some companies use the waste to generate more power. Connick said he wants more information about the waste before the next vote on the bill on the Senate floor, which has not been scheduled yet. There are no current proposals to place SMRs in Louisiana. A few projects in other states are under licensing review with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the first are projected to be built within the next 10 years. Louisiana recently joined several states in suing the federal government to loosen its regulations around nuclear power. The lawsuit claims blanket rules are not equal for reactors that vary in size. SMRs are safer and create less nuclear waste, so they should have different regulations from the full-sized reactors, the plaintiff states argue. 'Ultimately, if you're looking at what we are doing on the legislative side, see what we are doing when it comes to litigation, that puts in companies' eyes that Louisiana is a desirable state' for nuclear power, Giacometto said. Giacometto said the governor is onboard with the lawsuit. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
19-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Louisiana joins Utah, Texas in suit on nuclear reactors
In the United States, only three commercial nuclear reactors of any size have been built in the last 28 years. A lawsuit filed by Texas, Utah and a nuclear startup company called Last Energy, and joined this week by Louisiana, targets the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, arguing the lack of nuclear reactor development is by design. 'The root cause is not lack of demand or technology — but rather the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ('NRC'), which, despite its name, does not really regulate new nuclear reactor construction so much as ensure that it almost never happens,' the lawsuit reads. 'Despite the promise of advanced nuclear technology to improve safety and reliability, and despite numerous laws designed to encourage small modular innovation, the NRC's misreading of its own scope of authority has become a virtually insuperable obstacle.' This obstacle, the lawsuit asserts, is not the regime Congress envisioned. The lawsuit details that Last Energy has invested tens of millions of dollars in developing the technology for small nuclear reactors, including $2 million on manufacturing efforts in Texas alone. Last Energy's entire nuclear system operates inside of a container that is fully sealed with 12-inch-thick steel walls, and as such, has no credible mode of radioactive release even in the worst reasonable scenario. Although it has a preference in the United States, the company has been forced to turn to foreign countries because of the NRC, according to the lawsuit. 'As of 2024, Last Energy has agreements to develop over 50 nuclear reactor facilities across Europe, which would produce power worth tens of billions of dollars over their lifetime,' the lawsuit reads. One such project in the United Kingdom would lead to $400 million in investment for the economy in Wales. The states and company want a rule called the Utilization Facility Rule nixed, arguing it is being applied in an arbitrary and capricious fashion that hamstrings development of advanced nuclear technologies such as small modular reactors and microreactors. The lawsuit states that the Department of Energy has observed that small modular reactors, or SMRs, typically offer numerous advantages over traditional nuclear power plants. These include lower cost and capital investment, because SMR units are typically modular, prefabricated and then installed on-site; have a smaller footprint, creating greater siting flexibility and allowing deployment in locations inaccessible to conventional nuclear reactors; require less frequent refueling; and have greater efficiency and faster construction, facilitating incremental development. The lawsuit argues the stringent permitting regulations on these advanced nuclear technologies do not match the health and safety risks they pose. 'Even before the prevalence of many of the safety features that are built into typical modern SMRs, nuclear power was already far safer than almost every other leading form of power generation. For example, hydropower results in 43 times as many deaths as nuclear power, natural gas 93 times as nuclear power, biomass 153 times as many, oil 613 times as many and brown coal 1,090 times as many; even wind power is deadlier and solar is barely safer,' the suit reads. In fact, the suit points out, in terms of radiation exposure alone, fly ash — an emission from power plants burning coal — is far more radioactive than emissions from nuclear waste. Fly ash emitted by a coal plant can release up to 100 times more radiation into the atmosphere than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. The Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, a consortium of independent power producers like Bountiful, Murray and Lehi, sought a source of baseload power given the pressure on coal-fired power plants. They partnered with nuclear energy developer NuScale and the Idaho National Laboratory to site a small modular nuclear reactor as a viable baseload alternative. But years of permitting delays drove up costs outside of what was feasible, so the effort was scrapped despite the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars. The licensing costs are high. Utilization facilities that are operating power reactors must pay annual fees of $5.3 million dollars. The lawsuit points out that the NRC is anticipating collecting over $808 million in fees from private parties in fiscal year 2024. 'Even apart from specific fees, the ongoing regulatory burden is immense. One study from 2017 estimated that the average nuclear plant bears an NRC-imposed regulatory burden of $60 million annually, when fees, paperwork compliance, and capital expenditures are considered,' the lawsuit contends. Both Texas and Utah claim injuries due to the NRC. 'Utah recognizes it's headed towards an energy crisis due to rapid population growth, increasing electrification of society, more energy intensive industries, and retiring baseload power sources. To address the problem, Utah needs and plans to double its power production over the next decade via a recently announced initiative called 'Operation Gigawatt,'' the lawsuit says. 'But Utah's ability to use (or allow industry to use) SMRs to address the energy crisis is severely and unnecessarily restricted by the NRC's unlawful regulations,' it asserts. Last Energy said after spending $2 million on a project to manufacture nuclear reactors in Texas, it was forced to abandon it because of 'prohibitive' federal regulations and instead move its investment to foreign countries. 'Last Energy determined the cost and time to receive a license in the United States was so radically disproportionate to the risk that it was infeasible to pursue as a small business, despite having superior technology that would benefit Texas and the rest of the United States,' according to the lawsuit. In 2024, then-Rep. John Curtis, R-Utah, introduced the Advanced Nuclear Reactor Prize Act that authorized the U.S. secretary of Energy to award grants to cover fees assessed by the U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 'The costs and red tape associated with our permitting process are proving to be duplicative and ineffective,' Curtis said. 'We need innovation in the nuclear space to ensure affordable, reliable and clean energy in our future and Congress must do more to ensure that can happen.' Curtis, now a senator, successfully got the legislation through and it was signed by President Joe Biden. Critics of nuclear energy, however, argue it is right that the government takes it time on nuclear energy in the interest of public safety, nuclear waste storage issues and, ultimately, the cost to ratepayers.
