Latest news with #NationalConferenceofStateLegislatures
E&E News
5 days ago
- Business
- E&E News
State lawmakers go big on bills to advance nuclear power
A U.S. 'nuclear renaissance' has been illusory since the term was coined more than two decades ago. But a new force dominating energy markets — surging power demand from AI data centers — has convinced the industry that a revival is, finally, at hand. Nuclear, one of the few electricity generation technologies that's been backed by Democratic and Republican administrations, including President Donald Trump, has quietly gained traction in statehouses from Phoenix to Austin to Indianapolis. Advertisement More than 200 nuclear-related bills were filed in state capitols so far this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) database. Dozens have already been signed into law or are awaiting governors' signatures. The stimulus for action by policymakers is no secret. Unlike in the past, when nuclear power was pitched as a carbon-free backfill for aging coal plants, the selling point today is focused squarely on rising power demand, especially for power-thirsty data centers. Industry advocates have for years extolled the technology's benefits: It doesn't spew greenhouse gases and reactors can usually operate year-round except for refueling outages. But since the nuclear boom of the 1970s and '80s, efforts to jump-start development in the U.S. have flopped because of project delays, spiraling costs, accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima, and scandal. Desperate to bring economic investment and jobs to their states and districts, state legislators of both parties are courting 'hyperscaler' data centers operated by technology titans like Google, Microsoft and Amazon. And lawmakers are keenly aware that power availability is at the top of the list of requirements. Sue Rezin, a Republican state senator from Illinois and co-chair of NCSL's Energy Supply Task Force, has seen the growing interest in nuclear firsthand. 'The conversation around nuclear has changed,' said Rezin, whose northern Illinois district is ringed by three of the state's six Constellation Energy nuclear plants. 'Not so long ago, absolutely no one except for me was speaking about nuclear. It was all about wind, solar and batteries. But now that the economy is changing, which is exciting, because of AI, we've seen this huge need for power.' In Illinois, she said economic development projects looking at her district were looking for 50 to 100 megawatts. 'Now we have companies coming to the area saying that they need up to 1,000 MW.' Leaders with the nuclear industry trade association, the Nuclear Energy Institute, have testified on the bills in legislative hearings, arguing in large part that the tech industry needs reactors. 'They not only need the power, but they have a mandate that it has to be reliable, it has to be clean,' Christine Csizmadia, NEI's director for state governmental affairs and advocacy. 'Nuclear is one of the few (technologies) that can provide those specific attributes.' Nuclear meets AI in Indiana Indiana is one state where lawmakers prioritized legislation to stimulate nuclear development. Lawmakers passed a trio of bills aimed at attracting small modular reactors (SMR), considered by many leaders in the state as a fitting replacement for an aging coal fleet. And Republican Gov. Mike Braun and other state officials see potential for making Indiana a manufacturing hub for the next-generation reactors. In addition to signing the nuclear legislation, Braun issued an executive order to establish a coalition to advance SMRs in the state and attract suppliers. '(Braun) knows the large clean power that can come from nuclear power,' Suzanne Jaworowski, Indiana's secretary of energy and natural resources, said in an interview. 'And he feels that there's no way to achieve emissions goals and really have a balance of clean energy without nuclear being in the mix.' Jaworowski has been a central figure in Indiana's push to embrace nuclear power. And she is no stranger to the industry having served at the Department of Energy during Trump's first term and later as a consultant for SMR developer NuScale Power. She sees the AI race and big tech's growing demand for power as a way to finance a new generation of nuclear reactors that can serve the state for decades to come. She framed the issue to lawmakers by ticking off a list of big electricity users looking to locate in Indiana — semiconductor plants, ethanol refineries, steel manufacturers and data centers, including an $11 billion Amazon project in New Carlisle, Indiana, that needs 2 gigawatts of power. In an interview after the legislation passed, Jaworowski noted that one of the three nuclear bills requires large power loads such as a data center to cover 80 percent of the cost of new development 'rather than putting that on the ratepayers.' One Hoosier State utility already taking tangible steps to pursue a nuclear project is AEP's Indiana Michigan Power (I&M). The company already operates the D.C. Cook nuclear plant to help serve 600,000 customers in northern Indiana and southwest Michigan. I&M is seeking a $50 million federal grant in partnership with the Tennessee Valley Authority and others to support an early site permit for a 300 megawatt SMR at the site of its Rockport coal-fired power plant in far southern Indiana, which is slated for retirement in 2028. Rockport was among former coal plant sites identified as prime candidates for SMRs, according to a Purdue University study prepared for the Indiana Office of Energy Development. I&M's interest in nuclear power is driven by the same factors prompting other utilities to examine nuclear energy. It's planning for fast-growing electricity demand in its service area, notably a $2 billion Google data center in Fort Wayne, Indiana. In all, the utility has contracts with three large data center customers that will more than double I&M's peak power demand by 2030, said I&M President Steve Baker. 'We're seeing an explosion of electrical demand,' Baker told lawmakers during a hearing earlier this year. 'It has taken 120 years to build our current peak electrical demand with our 600,000 customers between both states. Over the next five years we're going to more than double that.' 'Why is grandma footing the bill?' Not everyone in Indiana is embracing the nuclear push. Kerwin Olson, executive director of the Citizens Action Coalition, an Indiana consumer and environmental group, said the group doesn't oppose nuclear technology but is concerned about pushing costs — and risks — onto consumers already struggling with rising energy bills. Olson said one particular provision enacted in Indiana is especially egregious. It allows utilities to track and recover nuclear pre-development costs such as permitting and licensing even before utilities formally seek a permit to build a new reactor. 'They don't have to commit to the project,' Olson said. 'They can collect this stuff just for thinking about it.' While Citizens Action Coalition joined others in a regulatory settlement aimed at requiring large electricity users such as data centers to pay their fair share of new grid infrastructure, that agreement doesn't include potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in costs to assess a potential project, Olson said. The newly enacted nuclear legislation, he said, solely benefits shareholders of utilities such as AEP and their tech giant customers. 'Why is grandma footing the bill for AEP and Google to think about SMRs,' Olson said. Some of the nation's largest utilities, while they believe advanced nuclear and SMRs hold promise for the long term, have stated they don't see it contributing in the near term. Duke Energy in its 2024 long-range energy plan in Indiana noted that SMRs didn't make the cut economically in terms of its 'preferred' energy portfolio over the next 20 years. The nuclear debate in Indiana this spring focused on two competing visions of the future. Proponents envisaged a next-generation reactor, ideally one assembled by Indiana workers, occupying the very piece of land where one of the state's biggest polluters once stood. Opponents focused attention on a former nuclear site two hours away near the small town of Madison, Indiana, a nightmare from decades ago and a sign of what could go wrong. The tale of Indiana's Marble Hill plant is still very much on the mind of some. A headline in The New York Times from January 1984 sums it up: 'Half-Built Indiana Nuclear Plant Abandoned at a $2.5 Billion Cost.' Public Service Co. of Indiana, now a part of Duke Energy, gave up on the plant as costs soared and it ran out of cash to complete construction. It was at the time, according to the Times, the most expensive of 100 canceled nuclear projects nationwide in the wake of the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island. Even if a repeat is unlikely, critics of Indiana's nuclear rush say it would be at least two decades under the best-case scenario before the state could see its first reactor built and producing energy. And the timing mismatch has implications for greenhouse gas emissions — a climate problem that nuclear power is supposed to help address. That's because the surge of electricity demand facing Indiana over the next five years is seen as catalyzing billions of dollars in new natural gas investment and could see existing coal plants continue to operate beyond planned retirement dates. Braun this spring issued an executive order, citing Trump's declaration of a 'national energy emergency,' to evaluate all of Indiana's operating coal plants to see if their operating lives can be extended. Jaworowski said it's part of the governor's 'all of the above' approach to ensuring the state has adequate energy supplies. 'Right now, we need every megawatt we can get on the grid, and so if we have coal plants that are running efficiently and operating in an environmentally safe way, we surely don't want to see those megawatts go off the grid,' Jaworowski said. Olson frames it differently. 'There is an all-out push from the Braun administration to try to move toward SMRs and, meanwhile, keep coal plants open,' he said. 'That's the agenda.' Beyond Indiana, states including Arizona, Arkansas, North Dakota, Utah and Virginia have enacted laws to encourage nuclear power. NEI's Csizmadia said many of the bills heard this spring fit a few broad categories. Some establish task forces or commissions to study the feasibility of nuclear plants. Others define nuclear power as 'clean energy.' Some eliminate nuclear moratoriums established in the 1970s and '80s. The most meaningful of the bills authorize funding or financial incentives, including a $350 million nuclear fund approved by Texas lawmakers. While it's a fraction of the $2 billion initially proposed, it's viewed as a win for the industry. The Texas bill is one of three passed in the Lone Star State to help encourage new nuclear development and make it a larger part of the energy mix. Csizmadia said the industry will need more than just favorable state policies and incentives to jump-start a long-awaited nuclear revival. Federal help and tech company capital is still essential. '[States] can be starters for a lot of these projects,' Csizmadia said. 'They can invest in things like the early permitting, or pre-application costs, or just allow for the companies to have the flexibility to use those funds for whatever costs they incur at the beginning of these projects.' But 'states are not going to be able to complete a nuclear project by themselves,' she added. 'They're going to need help.'
Boston Globe
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Massachusetts judge blocks Trump's election executive order, siding with Democrats who called it overreach
Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts said in Friday's order that the states had a likelihood of success as to their legal challenges. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,' Casper wrote. Advertisement Casper also noted that, when it comes to citizenship, 'there is no dispute (nor could there be) that U.S. citizenship is required to vote in federal elections and the federal voter registration forms require attestation of citizenship.' Casper cited arguments made by the states that the requirements would 'burden the States with significant efforts and substantial costs' to update procedures. Messages seeking a response from the White House and Department of Justice were not immediately returned. The ruling is the second legal setback for Trump's election order. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., previously blocked parts of the directive, including the proof-of-citizenship requirement for the federal voter registration form. Advertisement The order is the culmination of Trump's longstanding complaints about elections. After his first win in 2016, Trump falsely claimed his popular vote total would have been much higher if not for 'millions of people who voted illegally.' Since 2020, Trump has made false claims of widespread voter fraud and manipulation of voting machines to explain his loss to Democrat Joe Biden. He has said his executive order secures elections against illegal voting by noncitizens, though multiple studies and investigations in the states have shown that it's rare and typically a mistake. Casting a ballot as a noncitizen is already against the law and can result in fines and deportation if convicted. Also blocked in Friday's ruling was part of the order that sought to require states to exclude any mail-in or absentee ballots received after Election Day. Currently, 18 states and Puerto Rico accept mailed ballots received after Election Day as long they are postmarked on or before that date, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Oregon and Washington, which conduct their elections almost entirely by mail, filed a separate lawsuit over the ballot deadline, saying the executive order could disenfranchise voters in their states. When the lawsuit was filed, Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs noted that more than 300,000 ballots in the state arrived after Election Day in 2024. Trump's order has received praise from the top election officials in some Republican states who say it could inhibit instances of voter fraud and will give them access to federal data to better maintain their voter rolls. But many legal experts say the order exceeds Trump's power because the Constitution gives states the authority to set the 'times, places and manner' of elections, with Congress allowed to set rules for elections to federal office. As Friday's ruling states, the Constitution makes no provision for presidents to set the rules for elections. Advertisement During a hearing earlier this month on the states' request for a preliminary injunction, lawyers for the states and lawyers for the administration argued over the implications of Trump's order, whether the changes could be made in time for next year's midterm elections and how much it would cost the states. Justice Department lawyer Bridget O'Hickey said during the hearing that the order seeks to provide a single set of rules for certain aspects of election operations rather than having a patchwork of state laws and that any harm to the states is speculation. O'Hickey also claimed that mailed ballots received after Election Day might somehow be manipulated, suggesting people could retrieve their ballots and alter their votes based on what they see in early results. But all ballots received after Election Day require a postmark showing they were sent on or before that date, and that any ballot with a postmark after Election Day would not count.
Los Angeles Times
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Judge blocks Trump's election executive order, siding with Democrats who called it overreach
ATLANTA — A federal judge on Friday blocked President Trump's attempt to overhaul elections in the U.S., siding with a group of Democratic state attorneys general who challenged the effort as unconstitutional. The Republican president's March 25 executive order sought to compel officials to require documentary proof of citizenship for everyone registering to vote for federal elections, accept only mailed ballots received by Election Day and condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the new ballot deadline. The attorneys general said the directive 'usurps the States' constitutional power and seeks to amend election law by fiat.' The White House defended the order as 'standing up for free, fair and honest elections' and called proof of citizenship a 'commonsense' requirement. Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts said in Friday's order that the states had a likelihood of success as to their legal challenges. 'The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,' Casper wrote. Casper also noted that, when it comes to citizenship, 'there is no dispute (nor could there be) that U.S. citizenship is required to vote in federal elections and the federal voter registration forms require attestation of citizenship.' Casper cited arguments made by the states that the requirements would 'burden the States with significant efforts and substantial costs' to update procedures. The ruling is the second legal setback for Trump's election order. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., previously blocked parts of the directive, including the proof-of-citizenship requirement for the federal voter registration form. The order is the culmination of Trump's longstanding complaints about elections. After his first win in 2016, Trump falsely claimed his popular vote total would have been much higher if not for 'millions of people who voted illegally.' Since 2020, Trump has made false claims of widespread voter fraud and manipulation of voting machines to explain his loss to Democrat Joe Biden. He has said his executive order secures elections against illegal voting by noncitizens, though multiple studies and investigations in the states have shown that it's rare and typically a mistake. Casting a ballot as a noncitizen is already against the law and can result in fines and deportation if convicted. The order also would require states to exclude any mail-in or absentee ballots received after Election Day and puts states' federal funding at risk if election officials don't comply. Currently, 18 states and Puerto Rico accept mailed ballots received after Election Day as long they are postmarked on or before that date, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Oregon and Washington, which conduct their elections almost entirely by mail, filed a separate lawsuit over the ballot deadline, saying the executive order could disenfranchise voters in their states. When the lawsuit was filed, Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs noted that more than 300,000 ballots in the state arrived after Election Day in 2024. Trump's order has received praise from the top election officials in some Republican states who say it could inhibit instances of voter fraud and will give them access to federal data to better maintain their voter rolls. But many legal experts say the order exceeds Trump's power because the Constitution gives states the authority to set the 'times, places and manner' of elections, with Congress allowed to set rules for elections to federal office. As Friday's ruling states, the Constitution makes no provision for presidents to set the rules for elections. During a hearing earlier this month on the states' request for a preliminary injunction, lawyers for the states and lawyers for the administration argued over the implications of Trump's order, whether the changes could be made in time for next year's midterm elections and how much it would cost the states. Justice Department lawyer Bridget O'Hickey said during the hearing that the order seeks to provide a single set of rules for certain aspects of election operations rather than having a patchwork of state laws and that any harm to the states is speculation. O'Hickey also claimed that mailed ballots received after Election Day might somehow be manipulated, suggesting people could retrieve their ballots and alter their votes based on what they see in early results. But all ballots received after Election Day require a postmark showing they were sent on or before that date, and that any ballot with a postmark after Election Day would not count. Cassidy writes for the Associated Press.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Permitless concealed carry in North Carolina faces uphill battle after some GOP pushback
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — A bill to let adults carry concealed handguns without a permit cleared the North Carolina legislature on Wednesday, however the path to joining the majority of U.S. states with similar laws remains uncertain. The GOP-backed legislation faces a likely veto from Democratic Gov. Josh Stein, as well as pushback from a handful of Republicans who voted against the legislation in the state House. House Speaker Destin Hall acknowledged those concerns after Wednesday's vote. 'I would imagine that — math being math — that it's probably a low percentage relative to other bills," Hall told reporters. If the bill becomes law, North Carolina would become the 30th state in the country to legalize permitless carrying of a concealed handgun, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. North Carolina would also be one of the last states in the Southeast to implement that legislation. The legislation allows for eligible people with valid identification over the age of 18 to carry a concealed handgun. More than half of states with permitless concealed carry set their age limit at 21 and older, while the rest have the legal carrying age at 18, according to the NCSL. Currently, a person must be 21 and older to obtain a concealed handgun permit in North Carolina. To qualify, an applicant must pass a firearms safety training course and not 'suffer from a physical or mental infirmity that prevents the safe handling of a handgun,' according to state law. Approving permitless concealed carry has been a goal of gun-rights activists in North Carolina for years, with House Republicans historically supportive of the idea. Some see it as the next step after Republican lawmakers successfully eliminated the permit system that required sheriffs to conduct character evaluations and criminal history checks for pistol applicants in 2023. Conservative advocates for the bill say it would strengthen Second Amendment rights for North Carolinians. Republican lawmakers also disputed that the bill would make the state more dangerous, as 'law-abiding citizens' would be the only people that would benefit from the permit elimination, not criminals, Republican Rep. Brian Echevarria said. 'Rights to keep and bear arms are constitutionally inseparable,' Echevarria said. 'If a person cannot own a firearm, they cannot bear a firearm." The bill's passage tees up one of the first opportunities for a likely veto from Stein if he stays aligned with his fellow Democrats in the legislature. Stein has a more powerful veto stamp than his predecessor Roy Cooper, after Republicans lost their House supermajority last year that allowed them to override vetoes and enact their legislative agenda with relative ease. Now, House Republicans would need to count on a Democrat to join in their override efforts. Reaching that goal seems especially daunting, considering all of the present House Democrats — and two Republicans — voted against the bill. The governor's office didn't respond to a request for comment on the legislation, but House Deputy Democratic Leader Cynthia Ball said in a committee Tuesday that Stein was opposed to it. Several Democratic legislators said it would make communities unsafe by loosening who can carry a concealed handgun without training. Democrats also raised issue with the age limit set in the bill, saying it would put guns in the hands of young people who aren't yet mature enough to have one. 'Do you not remember when you were 18? We are prone and so susceptible to peer pressure, we are hotheaded, we are emotional,' Democratic Rep. Tracy Clark said on the House floor after retelling her personal experience of losing two friends in college to gun violence. Those seeking a permit for their concealed handgun — such as for the purpose of traveling with a firearm to a state that requires a permit — would still be able to do so. The bill also heightens the felony punishment for those who assault law enforcement officers or first responders with a firearm. A separate bill that makes gun safety courses available at North Carolina community colleges for people 18 and up passed in a near-unanimous House vote directly after the concealed carry permit repeal legislation was approved. ___ Associated Press writer Gary D. Robertson in Raleigh contributed to this report.
Hamilton Spectator
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Hamilton Spectator
Permitless concealed carry in North Carolina faces uphill battle after some GOP pushback
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — A bill to let adults carry concealed handguns without a permit cleared the North Carolina legislature on Wednesday, however the path to joining the majority of U.S. states with similar laws remains uncertain. The GOP-backed legislation faces a likely veto from Democratic Gov. Josh Stein, as well as pushback from a handful of Republicans who voted against the legislation in the state House. House Speaker Destin Hall acknowledged those concerns after Wednesday's vote. 'I would imagine that — math being math — that it's probably a low percentage relative to other bills,' Hall told reporters. If the bill becomes law, North Carolina would become the 30th state in the country to legalize permitless carrying of a concealed handgun, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. North Carolina would also be one of the last states in the Southeast to implement that legislation. The legislation allows for eligible people with valid identification over the age of 18 to carry a concealed handgun. More than half of states with permitless concealed carry set their age limit at 21 and older, while the rest have the legal carrying age at 18, according to the NCSL. Currently, a person must be 21 and older to obtain a concealed handgun permit in North Carolina. To qualify, an applicant must pass a firearms safety training course and not 'suffer from a physical or mental infirmity that prevents the safe handling of a handgun,' according to state law. Approving permitless concealed carry has been a goal of gun-rights activists in North Carolina for years, with House Republicans historically supportive of the idea. Some see it as the next step after Republican lawmakers successfully eliminated the permit system that required sheriffs to conduct character evaluations and criminal history checks for pistol applicants in 2023. Conservative advocates for the bill say it would strengthen Second Amendment rights for North Carolinians. Republican lawmakers also disputed that the bill would make the state more dangerous, as 'law-abiding citizens' would be the only people that would benefit from the permit elimination, not criminals, Republican Rep. Brian Echevarria said. 'Rights to keep and bear arms are constitutionally inseparable,' Echevarria said. 'If a person cannot own a firearm, they cannot bear a firearm.' The bill's passage tees up one of the first opportunities for a likely veto from Stein if he stays aligned with his fellow Democrats in the legislature. Stein has a more powerful veto stamp than his predecessor Roy Cooper , after Republicans lost their House supermajority last year that allowed them to override vetoes and enact their legislative agenda with relative ease. Now, House Republicans would need to count on a Democrat to join in their override efforts. Reaching that goal seems especially daunting, considering all of the present House Democrats — and two Republicans — voted against the bill. The governor's office didn't respond to a request for comment on the legislation, but House Deputy Democratic Leader Cynthia Ball said in a committee Tuesday that Stein was opposed to it. Several Democratic legislators said it would make communities unsafe by loosening who can carry a concealed handgun without training. Democrats also raised issue with the age limit set in the bill, saying it would put guns in the hands of young people who aren't yet mature enough to have one. 'Do you not remember when you were 18? We are prone and so susceptible to peer pressure, we are hotheaded, we are emotional,' Democratic Rep. Tracy Clark said on the House floor after retelling her personal experience of losing two friends in college to gun violence. Those seeking a permit for their concealed handgun — such as for the purpose of traveling with a firearm to a state that requires a permit — would still be able to do so. The bill also heightens the felony punishment for those who assault law enforcement officers or first responders with a firearm. A separate bill that makes gun safety courses available at North Carolina community colleges for people 18 and up passed in a near-unanimous House vote directly after the concealed carry permit repeal legislation was approved. ___ Associated Press writer Gary D. Robertson in Raleigh contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
