https://apnews.com/article/uranium-mining-mount-taylor-traditional-cultural-property-8bf3cc46117a507cd0a966a3041e0e39

Uranium mines pose first test for state-recognized Mount Taylor cultural landscape in New Mexico

 

The western slope of Mount Taylor is capped with snow on Nov. 25, 2025, in Cibola County, N.M. (Bella Davis/New Mexico In Depth via AP)
The western slope of Mount Taylor is capped with snow on Nov. 25, 2025, in Cibola County, N.M. (Bella Davis/New Mexico In Depth via AP) License this photo

By  BELLA DAVIS/New Mexico In Depth
Updated 2:31 AM GMT+8, September 16, 2026

 

For Native communities in northwest New Mexico’s Grants mineral belt, one of the central concerns with the idea of resumed uranium mining is the potential harm to Mount Taylor. That concern led the state to designate Mount Taylor as a traditional cultural property nearly two decades ago. But as uranium mining companies hoping to operate within the area move through the state permitting process, state regulators still can’t say what role the designation will play in their decisions.

Mount Taylor is sacred to the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, and the pueblos of Laguna, Acoma and Zuni.

“We have, and other peoples have, a really millennia-long relationship with the mountain,” June Lorenzo (Laguna/Diné) told the Radioactive and Hazardous Materials Committee during a meeting in the Laguna Pueblo village of Paguate on Friday. “It’s part of our vocabulary. It features largely in our creation stories.”

It’s not only the mountain that’s important, but also the surrounding landscape, said Lorenzo, a former tribal court judge who’s done academic research and advocacy work on legacy uranium issues.

The five tribes undertook a legal fight in the late 2000s in an effort to protect Mount Taylor from extraction, resulting in the state designation of 400,000 acres as a traditional cultural property. At the time, Lorenzo said, the tribes were accused of using the process to try to acquire the land, but that’s a misunderstanding of their relationships with Mount Taylor. Besides, the designation didn’t actually transfer ownership to them.

“None of us want to own—we will never own the mountain,” she said. “It’s like a relative.”

The designation is meant to give tribes a stronger voice in decisions about mining and other development, but because New Mexico hasn’t permitted a uranium mine since the designation took effect, it’s never been tested.

Two proposed underground uranium mines — Roca Honda and La Jara Mesa — would fall within the state-designated acreage.

Sen. Jeff Steinborn, D-Las Cruces, asked state regulators whether they can deny a permit based on concerns about cultural sites.

“I don’t have an answer to that question. We have yet to get to that stage of how impacts to the (traditional cultural property) will be mitigated,” said David “D.J.” Ennis, program manager of the Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department’s Mining Act Reclamation Program.

Ennis said the department is partnering with the U.S. Forest Service to evaluate the issue.

Energy Fuels, the top producer of uranium in the U.S., proposes having dewatering well pads used to remove groundwater from the mine and ventilation shafts on about 30 acres of the designated land.

In response to tribal input, the company revised previous iterations of its plan to remove “significant disturbance” from the area, including a mine shaft, said Nick Martin, environmental manager at Energy Fuels.

Steinborn seemed to be unconvinced.

“We have tremendous concern for cultural sites, not to mention the environmental issues and the worker safety issues,” he told Martin and two other Energy Fuels representatives.

How do they plan to mitigate impacts to the area, the state senator asked.

Martin mentioned independent engagement with tribes and a review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which requires federal agencies to consider how projects they carry out or permit will affect historic properties.

Sen. Angel Charley (Laguna/Zuni/Diné), a Democrat who grew up in Laguna Pueblo and lives in nearby Acoma Pueblo, pushed back on that, noting the Trump administration is trying to weaken Section 106.

That includes a proposal to make tribal consultation no longer required.

As Friday’s meeting wrapped up, New Mexico In Depth asked Misael Cabrera, senior vice president of regulatory affairs at Energy Fuels, to respond to the concern Charley — who has called for a moratorium on uranium mining — raised about Section 106.

“Sometimes politicians deregulate, other times politicians re-regulate,” Cabrera said. “Irrespective of what those folks do, we want to make sure that we’re being good neighbors for the communities that we’re in. Why? Because it makes business sense. If the people around you are always fighting you, it makes things harder.”

He pointed to an agreement Energy Fuels and the Navajo Nation signed in January 2025 that allows the company to transport uranium ore through Navajo lands. In exchange, the company agreed to more protections than what’s legally required and to haul away up to 10,000 tons of waste from abandoned uranium mines spread across the Navajo Nation, according to a press release.

The agreement came after the Navajo Nation and the Havasupai Tribe condemned Energy Fuels in 2024 for moving ore across their lands without their permission.

“One of the things that folks don’t understand when I say middle ground, some might ask, ‘Well, why can’t you just leave? Why can’t you just leave that place alone?’ It’s because these projects, they actually don’t start making money until like year five, after you’ve started producing,” Cabrera said. “And until then, we actually work on borrowed money. We borrow money from shareholders. … So we’ve got to analyze all of that in our decisions.”

___

This story was originally published by New Mexico In Depth and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.

Front page headline piece in LATimes this morning about San Onofre nuclear waste.  https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2026-09-12/as-coast-begins-to-crumble-clock-ticks-on-moving-san-onofres-radioactive-waste

If lots of you (I already did) send in LTE, they may publish one or two.   letters@LATimes.com

They mention the Lawrence Foundation symposium at Scripps, quote James Day, Greg Jaczko
 

As the coast begins to crumble, the clock ticks on moving San Onofre’s radioactive waste

A view of decommissioning work at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in San Clemente.
A view of decommissioning work around San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station reactor containment domes in San Clemente on Aug. 21. (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

By Blanca Begert
Staff Writer 
Photography by Allen J. Schaben

Sept. 12, 2026 3 AM PT

See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred 

  • Storm-driven erosion exposes vulnerability of California coast, reviving questions about keeping 3.6 million pounds of radioactive waste just 100 feet from the Pacific at decommissioned San Onofre nuclear power plant.
  • Utility officials say seawalls and a steel canister storage system can withstand tsunamis, quakes and rising seas for decades, even as scientists warn of hazards of storing nuclear waste indefinitely in a seismically active area next to the ocean.
  • With Yucca Mountain effectively canceled, federal officials promote new ‘campus’ storage sites in Utah and other states, promising jobs and consent-based siting while communities debate becoming America’s long-term nuclear waste repository.

As parts of the Southern California coastline crumbled into the sea, slammed by intense waves and flooding in recent days, oceanographer Kim McCoy had one thing on his mind: the nuclear waste set in concrete on the beach near San Clemente at the shuttered San Onofre nuclear power plant.

“Rising sea levels, storm waves, El Niño which increases wave height ... these could wash away a section of the walkway that protects the San Onofre seawall, and the waste canisters are just 100 feet away from that,” the former wave dynamics researcher and longtime advocate against beach storage of nuclear waste said.

Most experts agree the risk of erosion damaging the nuclear waste storage system is extremely low in the near term. The plant’s owner, Southern California Edison, has promised the California Coastal Commission to move the waste to higher elevation on-site if modeling shows sea level rise and erosion will start to pose a challenge.

 

But the recent waves, fueled by Hurricane Marie far away in the Pacific, resurfaced the issue of the ultimate fate of the highly radioactive spent fuel that used to power the reactors.

“At the moment, it is under control, I think it’s essential to say that,” said James Day, a geology professor at UC San Diego. “But geologically we must be thinking long term. The waste lasts for hundreds, if not thousands of generations.”

1
Rows of round concrete vaults, each holding a canister of used nuclear fuel, sit underground at the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation at the former San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

2
San Clemente, CA - Indep

3
San Clemente, CA - Aug. 21, 2

1. Rows of round concrete vaults, each holding a canister of used nuclear fuel, sit underground at the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation at the former San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. 2. Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) where dry cask storage of used nuclear fuel is stored horizontally at the decommissioning San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. 3. A photograph above the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station hangs on the wall of a conference room at the facility.

Seen from Interstate 5, the twin domes of San Onofre look like they’re part of an operating facility. Red lights flash at the top of each sphere, visible from afar, among the chaparral and military buildings of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton.

But go behind the security checkpoint and you see a demolition site. Trailers and tents now sit where acres of office buildings, steam turbines, diesel generators, control rooms, cooling pools and water treatment plants have been knocked down and hauled away, since a scandal involving faulty steam generators shut down the plant in 2013.

Most of the rubble, which is only mildly radioactive or not at all, has already been sent to sites in Utah, Texas and Arizona.
 

The distinctive twin domes that once housed the reactor cores will start coming down early next year. But the 3.6 million pounds of high-level waste will stay in the coastal community indefinitely.

How much of a safety hazard that is depends on whom you ask.

“San Onofre is sitting on some fairly young rocks in a seismically active region,” Day said at a recent symposium at the Scripps Seaside Forum in La Jolla, hosted by the Samuel Lawrence Foundation. “This is not the sort of place you would leave nuclear waste.”

Others noted that collapse of beach slopes could make the site more vulnerable to tsunamis. They spoke of the corrosive effects of the ocean air on the steel canisters that hold the waste.
A model display of a nuclear fuel assembly.
Manuel Camargo, principal manager, strategic planning, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, talks about nuclear waste storage with a model of a nuclear fuel assembly in the background on Aug. 21 in San Clemente. (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

“They could be doing more monitoring,” Greg Jaczko, former head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said of Edison. The utility tracks air temperature and radioactivity, checks canisters for cracks on the outside and inspects test canisters that mimic the active waste ones for signs of degradation.

Edison says its system will be safe for decades to come.

“The maximum credible tsunami here would not even overtake the seawall,” said Manuel Camargo, principal manager of decommissioning for Edison, standing on the concrete pad that holds the steel waste storage canisters. “The maximum credible earthquake, somewhere around a 7.0 magnitude, would produce something about half of what this system is designed to withstand.”

 

As he spoke, just in front of the plant, surfers were catching waves. He pointed out where Edison is bolstering a path below the seawall. Based on state data from the California Ocean Protection Council, the seawall would not be inundated before 2050, Camargo said. “It’s an extremely robust system.”

Rows of round concrete vaults, each holding a canister of used nuclear fuel.
Rows of round concrete vaults, each holding a canister of used nuclear fuel. The system, built into the bluff above the Pacific Ocean, holds dozens of canisters of radioactive waste and is designed to withstand fire, flood and tsunami.

Yet despite confidence in its protective measures, even the utility wants the waste out of there as soon as possible. Because this status quo is expensive.

From 1982 through 2014, Edison customers, like many ratepayers around the country, paid into a federal fund for a promised permanent nuclear waste storage site. But plans for a deep geological repository beneath Yucca Mountain in Nevada crumbled in the face of local opposition in 2011.

Utilities around the U.S. now sue the federal government every year to recoup their storage expenses because the Department of Energy has not come through on its promise. The lawsuits cost taxpayers $2 million a day, according to Camargo.

“It’s so safe that it’s almost a problem,” Camargo said. “It’s not a priority to a lot of folks to move it.”

San Clemente, CA - A

2
San Clemente, CA - A ca

3
San Clemente, CA - A cauti

1. A caution: radioactive material sign is posted as Kevin Sheek, senior advisor for Emergency Planning, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, gives a tour of the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) . 2. An estimated 5,000 rail cars wait to be loaded to haul away dismantled plant materials. 3. The plant is located on an 84-acre site on the Pacific coast within the boundaries of the Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton in San Diego County.

Camargo, like so many in the nuclear power industry, is hanging his hopes on a new idea. The Trump administration’s Department of Energy wants to create “campuses” in several states to store waste and, in exchange, give local jurisdictions funding to develop different aspects of the nuclear cycle — such as fuel creation, power generation and potentially fuel recycling.

The administration wants to address the fact that waste is sitting at 80 reactor sites around the country. It also needs places for waste from new reactors it wants to build. Several states including California have bans on new nuclear power until there is permanent federal storage. Some state leaders are trying to make an exception for small modular reactors such as the one the Port of Long Beach wants to build on a floating barge offshore.

rjohnson

Save The Date:

-

Wed. September 9, 2026, 7-8:30 PM ET

 

&

 

THREE MILE ISLAND:
LEGACY & RESISTANCE TO REOPENING 

 

A PUBLIC FORUM

Wednesday September 9, 2026, 7-8:30 PM Eastern time

Three Mile Island was the site of the most serious nuclear accident in U.S. history. Unit 2 suffered a partial meltdown in 1979 and has been shuttered ever since. People in central Pennsylvania still face lingering health effects from the reactor meltdown, and are now organizing to stop the re-0pening of Unit 1.

The announced restart of Three Mile Island Unit-1 is aimed to serve just one client: Microsoft, and has been met with unabashed enthusiasm by Governor Shapiro and the PA legislature. This deal was cooked up in dark in board rooms and political parlors with the backing of Microsoft founder, Bill Gates.

 

SPEAKERS

Eric Epstein is the spokesperson and Chairman of Three Mile Island Alert, founded in 1977. He first joined the Lancaster-based Susquehanna Valley Alliance (SVA) in 1982, working to prevent the illegal dumping of 700,000 gallons of radioactive water into the Susquehanna River. Eric has litigated at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other regulatory bodies, written numerous professional papers, and provided testimony regarding utility rates, electric power competition and radioactive waste isolation.

 

Patricia Longenecker is a retired teacher and healthcare professional who has lived on a family homestead near TMI since 1974.  She has been an active member of Three Mile Island Alert for over four decades. She will discuss the powerful contributions of women and mothers who have tirelessly exposed the risks to children and other vulnerable groups following the massive TMI radiation release.

 

Aaron Datesman is a researcher and inventor based in Washington, DC, who led a recent biomedical study of residents exposed to radiation from the TMI meltdown who are still at risk. He has held technical positions at Argonne National Laboratory, the US Department of Energy, NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, and the University of Virginia. His recent book, with Doug Brugge, Dirty Secrets of Nuclear Power in an Era of Climate Change challenges the claim that low-level ionizing radiation released by nuclear power reactors is not dangerous, and demonstrates that there is no such thing as low-risk exposure. 

 

Moderator: Joseph M Hunt is an activist with the Clamshell Alliance  and Massachusetts Peace Action, a development economist with 30 years’ experience in Asia and Africa working on public health and food security programs, and a retired instructor in Harvard's graduate sustainability degree program.

 

REGISTRATION LINK WILL AVAILABLE BY AUGUST 11th


ACCESSIBILITY: Live captioning will be available.
If you have accessibility questions, reply to your registration email to confirm your requirements or request more information.

 

QUESTIONS?
Contact us at info@clamshellalliance.com

From World Nuclear News, September 7, 2026
 

New Mexico Land Commissioner Stephanie Garcia Richard has issued an executive order banning the leasing of state lands for new uranium mining and related activities, and directing the State Land Office "to focus on cleaning up legacy uranium sites and calls on the uranium industry and the federal government to prioritise, fund and meaningfully address the legacy problems caused by uranium production". The order does not restrict the Land Office from re-issuing existing permits, rights-of-way or business leases related to "existing mineral leases with valid existing rights”. 

A Defunct Nuclear Site Had a Meltdown in 1959. A New Study Shows It’s Still Causing Health Problems

The Santa Susana Field Laboratory in Ventura County, California.
The Santa Susana Field Laboratory in Ventura County, California. © U.S. Department of Energy via Wikimedia Commons

Researchers found elevated reports of autoimmune and endocrine disorders among people living within 5 miles (8 kilometers) of the Santa Susana field Laboratory.

By 

Reading time 3 minutes

The Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) in Ventura County, California, is one of the most contaminated sites in the state. During its nearly 60 years of operation, the nuclear reactor and rocket testing site experienced several accidents—including a partial nuclear meltdown in 1959—that polluted the soil and groundwater with radioactive and chemical waste.

Since the SFFL was declared a superfund site in 1989, researchers have been working to understand the risk it poses to public health. Previous investigations focused on cancer incidence among residents living within 5 miles (8 kilometers) of the site, but a study published today in the journal Risk Analysis took a broader look, surveying people living as far as 15 miles (24 km) away and looking beyond cancer to other chronic illnesses commonly associated with contaminant exposure.

The findings suggest that people living closest to this superfund site may experience higher rates of autoimmune, endocrine, and metabolic disorders.

Not your typical superfund site

Affluent Ventura County is an unusual setting for a superfund site (an area designated by the EPA as being particularly polluted and dangerous). These toxic areas are disproportionately located near lower-income communities and minority populations. In this way, SFFL offers a unique research opportunity. A team led by Jenna Blyler of the University of California’s Wrigley Institute for Environment and Sustainability surveyed people living near SSFL to investigate several unanswered questions.

First, they wanted to know whether health risks extended beyond the diseases and geographic range examined in previous studies and whether those risks increased with proximity to the site. They also examined how residents perceive and respond to environmental health risks and whether their behavior matched theoretical predictions about risk perception and protective action.

The researchers surveyed 475 residents living within 15 miles (24 km) of the SSFL. Of the population sampled, 56% earned $100,000 or more annually. More than a third of residents reported at least one diagnosis since moving into their current residence. While this is on par with the national rate of 38%, chronic illness is normally much less common in high-income communities.

According to the study, 18% of surveyed residents living within 5 miles (8 km) of SSFL reported autoimmune diagnoses, compared with just 4% of those living 11 to 15 miles (18 to 24 km) away. This trend showed up in metabolic and endocrine disorders as well, with 15% of residents within close range of the facility reporting a diagnosis compared to just 2% of those farther away.

While this suggests that some illnesses may be more common the closer people live to the SFFL, it will require more research to confirm this, Blyler told Gizmodo in an email. She noted that her study relied on self-reported diagnoses that were not medically verified and did not capture the frequency or recurrence of individual diagnoses.

Surprising risk responses

The study also revealed some surprising trends in residents’ behavior. For example, risk research generally suggests that people who feel more capable of dealing with a threat are more likely to take protective action. In this study, however, people who felt more threatened by contamination were more likely to report taking precautions.

Cost is usually a barrier to protective action, but here, people who saw protection as more expensive were more likely to take precautions. Interestingly, proximity to the SSFL had no effect on protective action, but personal experience with illness did.

Understanding the public health hazards associated with this site and how the surrounding community responds to them will become increasingly important as the world warms. Research has shown that the spread of contaminants at the SSFL has been exacerbated by drought and wildfires, which are becoming more prevalent.

Blyler’s next study investigates how perceived proximity to an environmental hazard influences individual and community-level protective actions. “It may be that people in wealthier and more influential communities have the resources, access, or preference to advocate for protection at a broader level of society, rather than acting only to protect themselves individually,” she said.

by Zia Weise
 

With help from Benjamin Storrow, Sara Schonhardt and Zack Colman in the U.S., Brian Dabbs in Singapore, Mike Blanchfield in Canada, Alexandre Léchenet and Nicolas Camut in France, and Charlie Cooper in the United Kingdom.

CLIMATE MELTDOWN: Nuclear power is buzzing. Nations worldwide are pouring money into an atomic renaissance to confront rising temperatures and exploding electricity demand.

But climate change showed this summer how those plans could be at risk.

Nuclear plants across Europe were forced to halt or curtail generation in August as heat waves and drought plunged river levels to record lows, depriving reactors of cooling water.

Bulgaria’s sole nuclear plant throttled supply. Romania blew up a rock to keep the water flowing but was eventually forced to shutter both of its reactors. Hungary narrowly avoided shutting down its only nuclear plant, which provides half the country’s electricity, but slashed production by three-quarters. In France, a record number of reactors had to halt or cut output.

That prompted some governments and companies to question whether their multibillion-euro plans to build new plants should be adjusted to account for the rising threats of climate-related disasters.

Hungarian Prime Minister Péter Magyar is reconsidering expansion plans, citing a cooling system that he said is unfit to deal with global warming.

Romania’s energy ministry told POLITICO in a statement that the country isn’t backtracking on its nuclear ambitions, but that events this summer “reinforces the importance of ensuring that future projects are appropriately assessed against a broad range of climate, hydrological, environmental and energy-system conditions.”

The impacts come as nuclear power's popularity is resurging. Wars, data centers and climate change are driving the rebound. A coalition of European Union countries wants to boost generation 50 percent by midcentury.

In the U.S., the Trump administration aims to quadruple it over the same period, in part to account for the explosion of energy-intensive infrastructure for AI.

Europe, the fastest-warming continent, is particularly exposed to climate risks because many of its reactors were built along inland rivers or depend on cooling ponds that are vulnerable to drought.

“The temperature increases within Europe have been among the highest in the world,” said Brent Wanner, head of the power sector unit at the International Energy Agency. “So Europe would see some of these impacts first.”

In Europe, South Asia and some areas of the U.S. (such as Arizona and Texas), the biggest threats are drought and rising water temperatures. In coastal North America and other parts of Asia, it's hurricanes and typhoons, which can damage power lines.

And then there's jellyfish, which thrive in warming waters and clogged pumping systems at a French plant last month. It was the second year in a row it happened — on the same day.

Despite this summer’s problems, leaders so far say the promise of nuclear power is too big to abandon.

“Anyone who truly wants to protect the climate cannot be anti-nuclear,” Magyar said when he inspected Hungary’s vulnerable plant in late August.

Read the full story here.

HELLO AND WELCOME TO SURGE: I’m Zia Weise, senior climate reporter in POLITICO’s Brussels newsroom, bringing you the third edition of Surge.

If you’re wondering how Europe’s nuclear reactors are doing now, most of them are back at full capacity after some much-needed rain in late August. The jellyfish, though, are still at it — they brought another French plant to its knees last week.

Send tips and feedback, but please no jellyfish recipes, to zweise@politico.eu.

 
 
 
 

Inger Andersen, Executive Director UNEP, speaks at the German Pavilion during the COP29 U.N. Climate Summit, Thursday, Nov. 21, 2024, in Baku, Azerbaijan.

UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen says the world is expected to surpass the Paris Agreement's 1.5-degree target. | Rafiq Maqbool/AP

SPEAKING OF ADAPTATION: A U.N. report out Wednesday underscores the grid-reliability threats of a warming world.

The U.N. Environment Programme finally said the quiet part out loud in a report Wednesday: The world is going to miss its goal of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius — and not only does that mean we'll need more power, the power will be harder to get.

It warns that the new best-case scenario of peaking warming at 1.8 degrees Celsius risks overstraining power grids as the world faces sharply rising electricity demand from data centers, electric cars and a growing need for air conditioning.

Rising temperatures could triple the amount of power needed for keeping people cool, going from 5,000 terawatt-hours in 2002 to as much as 18,000 TWh by 2050. And the aforementioned heat waves, drought and other climate extremes could strain supplies further.

The report suggests scaling renewable power to 60-70 percent of global electricity generation by 2030 — up from around 32 percent in 2024.

The cost of holding warming at 1.8 degrees is around $2.4 trillion annually. —Sara Schonhardt

NOT WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS: The good news for climate action: Renewable energy is booming. The bad news: so are fossil fuels.

Bottom line: Adding clean tech to the globe’s energy systems won’t be enough to drastically curb planet-heating emissions as electricity demand soars, according to a new report from consulting firm McKinsey.

It’s no longer a given that efficiency improvements and plummeting costs for renewables will offset the world’s energy appetite. McKinsey said that “demand came from sources that earlier outlooks did not fully anticipate," such as energy-hungry artificial intelligence and higher air conditioning usage in Asia.

The paradox: While policymakers have focused on increasing electrification and clean energy deployment, the size of the energy pie is growing. That has made those contributions relatively smaller.

“Against this backdrop, and despite resilient renewables growth in some regions, expectations that oil demand is set to peak before 2030 warrant scrutiny. In fact, the entire system is growing, building all fuel and power industries in parallel,” the report said.

The findings are relevant for the United Nations climate talks in Turkey, known as COP31, in November. Officials will focus on a plan to increase global electrification to 35 percent of total energy consumption by 2035, though that pact will sit outside the official negotiations. The question is whether that target will help reduce emissions, given the rise of fossil fuels.

The report identifies a clear gap for renewables. Low carbon technologies like solar and wind are attracting as much investment as fossil fuels for the first time. But money is lagging for storage, transmission and other infrastructure to support it. — Zack Colman

GREEN RUSH: The U.S. was the world’s largest recipient of foreign investments in renewable energy between 2020 and June of this year, amounting to nearly $200 billion, according to BloombergNEF.

Foreign cash accounted for 49 percent of total dollars going to American renewables, with more than half of those international investments coming from the European Union. (Domestic and foreign investments amounted to $399 billion over that time — see the chart below.)

Renewable investments remain strong as projects race to qualify for tax breaks

Sara Schonhardt/POLITICO

Much of the foreign money has gone toward solar projects, with investments growing as the price of panels fell. Solar was also buoyed by challenges related to permitting wind energy projects.

Boomerang: Trump’s efforts to kill green subsidies have helped propel the investment rush as companies try to qualify for tax credits before they expire.

Despite their disappearance, booming electricity demand could make America an attractive market for clean energy investors.

“The fundamentals outside of the policy environment in the U.S. are extremely strong for renewable energy, especially when you look at load growth,” said Meredith Annex, head of clean power research at BloombergNEF. “I would imagine that investors will continue to look for wherever they're going to get their return, and if that's the U.S., it's the U.S.” —Sara Schonhardt

 

A message from AFPM:

The United States has the strongest fuel refining, petrochemical manufacturing and midstream energy industries in the world, backed by the most talented and innovative workforce. We produce more gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and refined products than any other country — more than we consume, and enough to export to our allies. Our petrochemical industry benefits from an abundance of affordable U.S. natural gas liquids and is able to keep critical materials flowing to manufacturers here and thousands of miles away.

Refineries, petrochemical facilities and energy pipelines are strategic national assets, essential to our economy, national security and modern life. American-made fuels power transportation, manufacturing and supply chains. Our petrochemicals are the building blocks for modern medicine, the homes we live in, the vehicles we drive and technologies shaping our future.

Learn more about how We Make Progress.

Our open tabs

STEP GINGERLY: U.S. House Republicans are divided over how to address the backlash around data centers ahead of midterm elections, report Amelia Davidson and Kelsey Brugger — just as President Donald Trump is doubling down on his support for them.

DATA CENTER SPEED BUMP: A judge blocked the approval of the first data center on U.S. public lands Tuesday, saying the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management’s move to switch a solar farm to a data center failed to prove the projects would have similar environmental footprints. The order may be more of a speed bump than a roadblock, writes Alex Guillén.

ANDY'S TEST: British Prime Minister Andy Burnham has promised to ease the cost of living for citizens facing what he says are the highest energy bills in Europe. But his options are limited amid an energy crunch stemming from the war in Iran. Charlie Cooper has the details.

TAX BIG OIL?: The EU’s green transition chief is proposing a tax on fossil fuel profits, more joint debt and a bigger budget to manage the costs of coping with climate change, Zia Weise reports. Those ideas aren’t likely to be embraced by all countries in the 27-member bloc, but they come as a summer of extreme weather took a toll on many of its economies.

That’s all for today. Thanks for reading!

Did someone forward Surge to you? Sign up here if you're in the U.S. or here if you're in the EU.

​​​

https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/york-big-bet-nuclear-energy-073000578.html
 

Canary Media

New York’s big new bet on nuclear energy

Alexander Kaufman
Thu, September 3, 2026 at 3:30 AM EDT

When Gov. Kathy Hochul took office in 2021, New York was in the middle of a complicated energy transition. Albany had passed one of the nation's most ambitious decarbonization laws only two years earlier, yet the state had just shuttered its single largest source of carbon-free power: the Indian Point nuclear station.

Five years later, the situation has flipped. Hochul, a Democrat who is up for reelection in November, watered down the state's decarbonization goals this spring and is now calling for the biggest buildout of new nuclear reactors in decades.

"Expanding our nuclear energy capacity will play a key role in my all-of-the-above energy strategy to ensure we have enough reliable power to keep the lights on and costs down for New Yorkers while helping attract 21st century economic development opportunities," Hochul said in a statement to Canary Media.

If successful, the 5 gigawatts of new nuclear power plants that Hochul aims to build would make New York the No. 3 state in the country in terms of atomic generating capacity.

It's an ambitious target. The entire U.S. has built just over 3 GW of new nuclear capacity over the last 20 years, and most of it came from the first-of-a-kind AP1000 buildout at Southern Company's Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating plant in Georgia, which was plagued by cost and deadline overruns.

Hochul's nuclear embrace comes as federal support flows toward efforts to build both smaller next-generation reactors and larger-scale facilities similar to the three New York already has.

"This is part of the return of energy realism to the Western world," said Isuru Seneviratne, the co-founder of Nuclear New York, an advocacy group that has pushed for more atomic energy in the state.

Not everyone is happy with the move. Influential local groups such as NY Renews say the state has not done enough to maximize wind and solar power, and some state lawmakers have called for a moratorium on nuclear.

Hochul, for her part, has cast nuclear energy as necessary for long-term decarbonization. The state has struggled to execute on its plan to build large-scale renewables upstate and ferry the power downstate, and President Donald Trump has all but crushed the offshore wind industry that New York was otherwise banking on for clean power.

"While dangerous policies coming out of Washington, D.C., threaten to halt our progress, I am doubling down on our efforts to strengthen our grid and invest in the clean energy we need to power New York," Hochul said in the statement to Canary Media.

Changing tides

The Empire State's turnaround marks a major shift in state energy policy.

Indian Point station, north of New York City — at one point the state's largest nuclear plant — shut down its last reactor in April 2021, following a decades-long campaign by those who believed the facility represented a grave risk from a September 11–style terrorist attack; among them were then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who also argued that the warm water the facility discharged harmed wildlife in the Hudson River.

Hochul took office later that same year, but it wasn't until 2024 that she began calling for the state to revisit nuclear energy.

In January 2025, Hochul issued a nuclear "master plan" for the state. Five months later, she ordered the New York Power Authority (NYPA) — the largest state-owned utility in the country — to help bring down the cost of building the first gigawatt of new nuclear capacity.

That December, New York inked a partnership with Ontario, where the conservative government is building what will likely be North America's first small modular reactor: a 300-megawatt BWRX-300 from the American Japanese giant GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy. The pact was aimed at working together to settle on one or two reactor designs that the entire Northeast could get behind, allowing for a regional supply chain to form that would bring down the costs of building the second, third, and fourth versions of the same technology.

In January 2026, Hochul upped the target, adding another 4 GW of capacity to the state's nuclear goal while announcing that eight upstate New York communities had responded to NYPA's request for information to express their interest in hosting nuclear facilities.

Two months later, she spearheaded a deal with the governors of all six New England states to coordinate plans for new nuclear projects with the hopes of further cementing a regional standard for nuclear. In June, her office kicked off the Public Service Commission process to begin siting the plants.

While Hochul has moved fast in recent months, the process of actually getting a new nuclear power plant built will be much slower.

"These are generational investments that we're talking about," said Doreen Harris, the chief executive of the New York State Research and Development Authority, the government agency in charge of charting the state's energy future. "These are not investments that necessarily mean you have a project in the ground in a small number of months. This is an infrastructure investment that the governor has committed us to that will be beneficial for many generations to come."

Political blowback could build once projects get underway.

Already, state Sen. Kevin Parker, a Democrat from Brooklyn, has introduced legislation to temporarily ban construction of any nuclear power projects. The bill, proposed in April, calls for a two-and-a-half-year pause and mimics the tactic data center opponents used in pushing the state to adopt the nation's first moratorium on the computing facilities.

Plans by the U.S. Army to deploy a microreactor at Fort Drum, located in the state's northern reaches, also drew pushback following the announcement last week.

"This is going to be the first one of these reactors that's ever been deployed anywhere. You'll discover how expensive it is and you'll discover how potentially dangerous it is," Alan Kuperman a professor at the University of Texas at Austin and coordinator of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project, told WWNY, a CBS affiliate located upstate.

Figuring out financing

Still the biggest hurdle to building a new nuclear power plant is financing it. In New York, electricity markets make the task that much harder.

In 1999, Albany established the New York Independent System Operator as the new overseer of the liberalized electricity market, officially breaking up the monopoly utilities

New York isn't alone in this. In the post–Cold War scramble to apply market logic to as many facets of American society as possible, most states broke up their utilities. Rather than one company owning the power plants, the distribution system, and the sales to customers, new electricity markets forced vertically integrated utilities to split apart, pitting electrical generators against one another at an auction overseen by new nonprofit grid operators. The idea was to drive down prices.

The new system had benefits. No longer could an obstinately coal-burning utility, for example, block the construction of increasingly cheap renewables. Independent developers could just build clean energy on their own and compete.

But financing large-scale power plants that take years to build has proved virtually impossible. The hydroelectric buildout of the 1920s and 1930s — and the nuclear boom of the 1960s and 1970s — relied on utilities offsetting the losses from megaprojects with soaring electricity sales in another division of the business. The private developers who now build power plants in markets like New York have no such ability, and are thus generally not willing to bear the risk of a capital-intensive project like a nuclear power plant.

New York's most recent nuclear reactor, Unit 2 of Nine Mile Point plant, in Oswego, came online in 1988. No new nuclear projects have even been attempted in the state since then.

All that is what makes NYPA's role so compelling. The state created the power authority in 1931, when then-Gov. Franklin D. Roosevelt sought a way to harness more hydroelectric power. NYPA later served as a national model once Roosevelt became president and enacted the New Deal, establishing federal utilities such as the Tennessee Valley Authority in the rural Southeast. Now, it can serve as a tool to help Albany exceed the typical limits of a liberalized market.

The state-owned power company can provide steady financing and support to help lower the hurdles private developers face in building electricity megaprojects.

NYPA's current nuclear mandate is limited to the first gigawatt Hochul wants to build. Asked whether NYPA could be used for more projects going forward, Sean Ewart, the deputy secretary of energy Hochul tasked with overseeing the new reactor buildout, said Albany was open to the idea.

"My honest answer to that question is that it's TBD," he said. "Our mission is to build this in the fastest way possible … so we're not thinking about this from any kind of ideological perspective. We're just thinking about this practically. Let's get this done.”

NOW JUST A WEEK AWAY!
 
Please share widely and invite all who might be interested:
 
Wednesday September 9, 2026, 7-8:30 PM ET
 
&
&
 
 
 
THREE MILE ISLAND:
LEGACY & RESISTANCE TO REOPENING 
 
AN ONLINE PUBLIC FORUM
 
Wednesday September 9, 2026, 7-8:30 PM Eastern time
 
Three Mile Island was the site of the most serious nuclear accident in U.S. history. Unit 2 suffered a partial meltdown in 1979 and has been shuttered ever since. People in central Pennsylvania still face lingering health effects from the reactor meltdown, and are now organizing to stop the re-0pening of Unit 1.
 
The announced restart of Three Mile Island Unit-1 is aimed to serve just one client: Microsoft, and has been met with unabashed enthusiasm by Governor Shapiro and the PA legislature. This deal was cooked up in the dark in board rooms and political parlors with the backing of Microsoft founder, Bill Gates.
 
SPEAKERS
 
Eric Epstein is the spokesperson and Chairman of Three Mile Island Alert, founded in 1977. He first joined the Lancaster-based Susquehanna Valley Alliance (SVA) in 1982, working to prevent the illegal dumping of 700,000 gallons of radioactive water into the Susquehanna River. Eric has litigated at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other regulatory bodies, written numerous professional papers, and provided testimony regarding utility rates, electric power competition and radioactive waste isolation.
 
Patricia Longenecker is a retired teacher and healthcare professional who has lived on a family homestead near TMI since 1974.  She has been an active member of Three Mile Island Alert for over four decades. She will discuss the powerful contributions of women and mothers who have tirelessly exposed the risks to children and other vulnerable groups following the massive TMI radiation release.
 
Aaron Datesman is a researcher and inventor based in Washington, DC, who led a recent biomedical study of residents exposed to radiation from the TMI meltdown who are still at risk. He has held technical positions at Argonne National Laboratory, the US Department of Energy, NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, and the University of Virginia. His recent book, with Doug Brugge, Dirty Secrets of Nuclear Power in an Era of Climate Change challenges the claim that low-level ionizing radiation released by nuclear power reactors is not dangerous, and demonstrates that there is no such thing as low-risk exposure. 
 
Moderator: Joseph M Hunt is an activist with the Clamshell Alliance  and Massachusetts Peace Action, a development economist with 30 years’ experience in Asia and Africa working on public health and food security programs, and a retired instructor in Harvard's graduate sustainability degree program.
 
 
ACCESSIBILITY: Live captioning will be available.
If you have accessibility questions, reply to your registration email to confirm your requirements or request more information.
 
QUESTIONS?
 
For social media sharing: 
 
To share on Facebook, paste this link into a page:
Or go to: 
https://www.facebook.com/ClamshellAlliance/ and copy the top/featured post.
 
A copy of the social media blurb is attached and the flyer, but please make sure the register link is included.

https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/batteries/us-built-more-grid-batteries

The US built more grid batteries last quarter than ever before

The outlook for storage construction keeps getting brighter as everyone from the Trump White House to clean energy advocates to AI giants clamors for more.

By Julian Spector

 

Two green-vested workers stand near batteries near a dirt road
Workers at the Pastoria battery energy storage facility in Arvin, California (Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

There’s never been a better time to build energy storage in the U.S. than right now.

Grid batteries — which sop up power when it’s abundant and discharge that energy when it’s needed — have been ascendant for a decade, as the price of the underlying lithium-ion cells fell precipitously. Bolstered by plummeting costs and increasing familiarity with the tech, developers started building bigger and in more parts of the country.

Now, the U.S. power sector has added more battery capacity in the second quarter of this year than any quarter ever, according to a report out today from the Solar Energy Industries Association and Benchmark Mineral Intelligence. Even as the wind and solar industries face uncertain futures, the outlook for continued battery growth is so strong that Benchmark Minerals upped the prediction for cumulative installs through 2030 by 11.5% from its previous report, issued just three months ago.

The 20.2 gigawatt-hours of battery capacity built from April through June represents one-tenth of the nation’s entire grid storage capacity. Seven of the new projects mustered at least 1 GWh or more of storage capacity, reflecting developers’ rising appetite for megabatteries.

To contextualize the numbers, the second-quarter installations can inject 6.7 gigawatts of instantaneous power onto the grid — equivalent to nearly seven big old-school nuclear reactors, but without the decade-plus wait time for construction. That comparison has its limits, though, because nuclear plants can generate around the clock, whereas batteries must refill and discharge.

Batteries can make a huge difference in places where the grid is stretched thin, and can be built quickly and closer to centers of energy consumption than new fossil-fuel-burning plants with their smokestacks and emissions.


Those qualities make the tech attractive in places where capacity is scarce, which happens to include California, Texas, the Southeast, the mid-Atlantic, the Northeast, and just about anywhere else. AI data center developers are turning to batteries to ensure they can keep the algorithms running during peak demand hours. And solar developers leverage batteries to turn their clean electrons into a more valuable on-demand resource; 44% of the new storage capacity was built alongside solar plants.

This widespread zeal for batteries extends to the Trump White House, which revoked wind and solar subsidies last year but kept Biden-era tax incentives for batteries. As the executive branch found novel and often legally dubious means to thwart wind and solar construction, it has left battery developers to go about their business.

Recently, the administration has more proactively encouraged the battery industry, loaning $490 million dollars to a battery project in Puerto Rico as well as funding efforts to reshore the supply chain for critical minerals used to make the tech. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who regularly blasts solar power on his official platforms, recently stopped by the Maine site of a novel iron-air battery that Form Energy plans to build, with help from Department of Energy grant funding.

An observer unencumbered by historical nuance might conclude that Trump is the battery president, and that no president has done more for batteries than he. SEIA even gestures in that direction, noting in its press release that large-scale storage nearly doubled during the first year and a half of the second Trump term, and that 74% of the second-quarter storage additions happened in states that voted for him — like Texas, Utah, and newly minted battery storage powerhouse Arizona.

The reality is these outcomes took years to build up to. Technologists tinkered with batteries in big boxes; California mandated its utilities buy storage and subsidized it for smaller customers; Texas wildcatters took big risks on early battery investments and made windfall profits; and companies like LG and Tesla built huge factories to solidify domestic battery supplies. Now, all that hard work is paying off with installations on a scale we’ve never seen before.

Oklo has another permitting application denied for lack of information – this one by PJM.
 
Oklo is appealing to FERC. The matter includes a clearer picture of what Oklo is planning under its power deal for a Meta data center in Ohio:
 
  • 150 MW of nuclear (evidently, comprised of two of its now-75 MW reactors)
  • 300 MW of fuel cells
  • 300 MW of gas generation
 
This is a far cry from the 1.2 GW of nuclear generation Oklo said the deal involved early this year. And it begs the question of how the fuel cells are going to be powered (perhaps with H2 produced from methane, or operated as a storage system using electricity generated by the other sources?). 

Pages