ADVERTISEABOUT USSUBMIT A STORYSUBSCRIBETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICY
Visit our family of Brands

Supreme Court confronts what to do with growing pile of nuclear waste

The Debate Continues

Republicans and Democrats, environmental groups and the oil and gas industry all oppose the temporary sites. Photo via uh.edu

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a fight over plans to store nuclear waste at sites in rural Texas and New Mexico.President Joe Biden's administration and a private company with a license for the Texas facility appealed a ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission exceeded its authority in granting the license. The outcome of the case will affect plans for a similar facility in New Mexico roughly 40 miles away.

On this issue, President Donald Trump's administration is sticking with the views of its predecessor, even with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican ally of Trump, on the other side.

The push for temporary storage sites is part of the complicated politics of the nation’s so far futile quest for a permanent underground storage facility.

Here's what to know about the case.

Where is spent nuclear fuel stored now?

Roughly 100,000 tons of spent fuel, some of it dating from the 1980s, is piling up at current and former nuclear plant sites nationwide and growing by more than 2,000 tons a year. The waste was meant to be kept there temporarily before being deposited deep underground.

A plan to build a national storage facility northwest of Las Vegas at Yucca Mountain has been mothballed because of staunch opposition from most Nevada residents and officials.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has said that the temporary storage sites are needed because existing nuclear plants are running out of room. The presence of the spent fuel also complicates plans to decommission some plants, the Justice Department said in court papers.

Where would it go?

The NRC granted the Texas license to Interim Storage Partners LLC for a facility that could take up to 5,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel rods from power plants and 231 million tons of other radioactive waste. The facility would be built next to an existing dump site in Andrews County for low-level waste, such as protective clothing and other material that has been exposed to radioactivity. The Andrews County site is about 350 miles west of Dallas, near the Texas-New Mexico state line.

The New Mexico facility would be in Lea County, in the southeastern part of the state near Carlsbad. The NRC gave a license for the site to Holtec International.

The licenses would allow for 40 years of storage, although opponents contend the facilities would be open indefinitely because of the impasse over permanent storage.

Political opposition is bipartisan

Republicans and Democrats, environmental groups and the oil and gas industry all oppose the temporary sites.

Abbott is leading Texas' opposition to the storage facility. New Mexico Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham also is opposed to the facility planned for her state.

A brief led by Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz on behalf of several lawmakers calls the nuclear waste contemplated for the two facilities an “enticing target for terrorists” and argues it's too risky to build the facility atop the Permian Basin, the giant oil and natural gas region that straddles Texas and New Mexico.

Elected leaders of communities on the routes the spent fuel likely would take to New Mexico and Texas also are opposed.

What are the issues before the court?

The justices will consider whether, as the NRC argues, the states forfeited their right to object to the licensing decisions because they declined to join in the commission’s proceedings.

Two other federal appeals courts, in Denver and Washington, that weighed the same issue ruled for the agency. Only the 5th Circuit allowed the cases to proceed.

The second issue is whether federal law allows the commission to license temporary storage sites. Opponents are relying on a 2022 Supreme Court decision that held that Congress must act with specificity when it wants to give an agency the authority to regulate on an issue of major national significance. In ruling for Texas, the 5th Circuit agreed that what to do with the nation’s nuclear waste is the sort of “major question” that Congress must speak to directly.

But the Justice Department has argued that the commission has long-standing authority to deal with nuclear waste reaching back to the 1954 Atomic Energy Act.

Some of those counties affected include production hot spots within the San Juan Basin in northwestern New Mexico and the Permian Basin, which straddles the New Mexico-Texas line. Photo via Getty Images

New Mexico court upholds emissions crackdown impacting oil, gas operations along Texas border

eyes on the west

The New Mexico Court of Appeals has upheld regulations aimed at cracking down on emissions in one of the nation’s top-producing oil and gas states.

The case centered on a rule adopted in 2022 by state regulators that called for curbing the pollutants that chemically react in the presence of sunlight to create ground-level ozone, commonly known as smog. High ozone levels can cause respiratory problems, including asthma and chronic bronchitis.

Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham's administration has long argued that the adoption of the ozone precursor rule along with regulations to limit methane emissions from the industry were necessary to combat climate change and meet federal clean air standards.

New Mexico Environment Secretary James Kenney said the court's decision on Wednesday affirmed that the rule was properly developed and there was substantial evidence to back up its approval by regulators.

“These rules aren’t going anywhere,” Kenney said in a statement to The New Mexican, suggesting that the industry stop spending resources on legal challenges and start working to comply with New Mexico's requirements.

The Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico had argued in its appeal that the rule disproportionately affected independent operators.

“The administration needs to stop its ‘death by a thousand cuts’ hostility to the smaller, family-owned, New Mexico-based operators,” the group's executive director, Jim Winchester, said in an email to the newspaper.

The group is considering its legal options.

Under the rule, oil and gas operators must monitor emissions for smog-causing pollutants — nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds — and regularly check for and fix leaks.

The rule applies to eight counties — Chaves, Doña Ana, Eddy, Lea, Rio Arriba, Sandoval, San Juan and Valencia — where ozone pollutants have reached at least 95% of the federal ambient air quality standard. Some of those counties include production hot spots within the San Juan Basin in northwestern New Mexico and the Permian Basin, which straddles the New Mexico-Texas line.

The industry group had argued that Chaves and Rio Arriba counties shouldn’t be included. The court disagreed, saying those counties are located within broader geographic regions that did hit that 95% threshold.

Ten-year-old radioactive waste is currently being debated about by New Mexico officials. Photo via Getty Images

Texas, New Mexico officials contemplate what to do with nuclear waste

in debate

Federal officials gathered Tuesday in southern New Mexico to mark the 25th anniversary of the nation’s only underground repository for radioactive waste resulting from decades of nuclear research and bomb making.

Carved out of an ancient salt formation about half a mile (800 meters) deep, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant outside Carlsbad has taken in around 13,850 shipments from more than a dozen national laboratories and other sites since 1999.

The anniversary comes as New Mexico raises concerns about the federal government’s plans for repackaging and shipping to WIPP a collection of drums filled with the same kind of materials that prompted a radiation release at the repository in 2014.

That mishap contaminated parts of the underground facility and forced an expensive, nearly three-year closure. It also delayed the federal government’s multibillion-dollar cleanup program and prompted policy changes at labs and other sites across the U.S.

Meanwhile, dozens of boxes containing drums of nuclear waste that were packed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory to be stored at WIPP were rerouted to Texas, where they've remained ever since at an above-ground holding site.

After years of pressure from Texas environmental regulators, the U.S. Department of Energy announced last year that it would begin looking at ways to treat the waste so it could be safely transported and disposed of at WIPP.

But the New Mexico Environment Department is demanding more safety information, raising numerous concerns in letters to federal officials and the contractor that operates the New Mexico repository.

“Parking it in the desert of West Texas for 10 years and shipping it back does not constitute treatment,” New Mexico Environment Secretary James Kenney told The Associated Press in an interview. “So that’s my most substantive issue — that time does not treat hazardous waste. Treatment treats hazardous waste.”

The 2014 radiation release was caused by improper packaging of waste at Los Alamos. Investigators determined that a runaway chemical reaction inside one drum resulted from the mixing of nitrate salts with organic kitty litter that was meant to keep the interior of the drum dry.

Kenney said there was an understanding following the breach that drums containing the same materials had the potential to react. He questioned how that risk could have changed since the character and composition of the waste remains the same.

Scientists at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque were contracted by the DOE to study the issue. They published a report in November stating that the federal government's plan to repackage the waste with an insulating layer of air-filled glass micro-bubbles would offer “additional thermal protection."

The study also noted that ongoing monitoring suggests that the temperature of the drums is decreasing, indicating that the waste is becoming more stable.

DOE officials did not immediately answer questions about whether other methods were considered for changing the composition of the waste, or what guarantees the agency might offer for ensuring another thermal reaction doesn't happen inside one of the drums.

The timetable for moving the waste also wasn't immediately clear, as the plan would need approval from state and federal regulators.

Kenney said some of the state's concerns could have been addressed had the federal government consulted with New Mexico regulators before announcing its plans. The state in its letters pointed to requirements under the repository's permit and federal laws for handling radioactive and hazardous wastes.

Don Hancock, with the Albuquerque-based watchdog group Southwest Research and Information Center, said shipments of the untreated waste also might not comply with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's certification for the containers that are used.

“This is a classic case of waste arriving somewhere and then being stranded — 10 years in the case of this waste,” Hancock said. “That’s a lesson for Texas, New Mexico, and any other state to be sure that waste is safe to ship before it’s allowed to be shipped.”

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

What EPA’s carbon capture and storage permitting announcement means for Texas

The View From HETI

Earlier this month, Texas was granted authority by the federal government for permitting carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects. This move could help the U.S. cut emissions while staying competitive in the global energy game.

In June, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed approving Texas’ request for permitting authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for Class VI underground injection wells for carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the state under a process called “primacy.” The State of Texas already has permitting authority for other injection wells (Classes I-V). In November, the EPA announced final approval of Texas’ primacy request.

Why This Matters for Texas

Texas is the headquarters for virtually every segment of the energy industry. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Texas is the top crude oil- and natural-gas producing state in the nation. The state has more crude oil refineries and refining capacity than any other state in the nation. Texas produces more electricity than any other state, and the demand for electricity will grow with the development of data centers and artificial intelligence (AI). Simply put, Texas is the backbone of the nation’s energy security and competitiveness. For the nation’s economic competitiveness, it is important that Texas continue to produce more energy with less emissions. CCS is widely regarded as necessary to continue to lower the emissions intensity of the U.S. industrial sector for critical products including power generation, refining, chemicals, steel, cement and other products that our country and world demand.

The Greater Houston Partnership’s Houston Energy Transition Initiative (HETI) has supported efforts to bring CCUS to a broader commercial scale since the initiative’s inception.

“Texas is uniquely positioned to deploy CCUS at scale, with world-class geology, a skilled workforce, and strong infrastructure. We applaud the EPA for granting Texas the authority to permit wells for CCUS, which we believe will result in safe and efficient permitting while advancing technologies that strengthen Texas’ leadership in the global energy market,” said Jane Stricker, Executive Director of HETI and Senior Vice President, Energy Transition at the Greater Houston Partnership.

What is Primacy, and Why is it Important?

Primacy grants permitting authority for Class VI wells for CCS to the Texas Railroad Commission instead of the EPA. Texas is required to follow the same strict standards the EPA uses. The EPA has reviewed Texas’ application and determined it meets those requirements.

Research suggests that Texas has strong geological formations for CO2 storage, a world-class, highly skilled workforce, and robust infrastructure primed for the deployment of CCS. However, federal permitting delays are stalling billions of dollars of private sector investment. There are currently 257 applications under review, nearly one-quarter of which are located in Texas, with some applications surpassing the EPA’s target review period of 24 months. This creates uncertainty for developers and investors and keeps thousands of potential jobs out of reach. By transferring permitting to the state, Texas will apply local resources to issue Class VI permits across the states in a timely manner.

Texas joins North Dakota, Wyoming, Louisiana, West Virginia and Arizona with the authority for regulating Class VI wells.

Is CCS safe?

A 2025 study by Texas A&M University reviewed operational history and academic literature on CCS in the United States. The study analyzed common concerns related to CCS efficacy and safety and found that CCS reduces pollutants including carbon dioxide, particulate matter, sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides. The research found that the risks of CCS present a low probability of impacting human life and can be effectively managed through existing state and federal regulations and technical monitoring and safety protocols.

What’s Next?

The final rule granting Texas’ primacy will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Once in effect, the Texas Railroad Commission will be responsible for permitting wells for carbon capture, use and storage and enforcing their safe operation.

———

This article originally ran on the Greater Houston Partnership's Houston Energy Transition Initiative blog. HETI exists to support Houston's future as an energy leader. For more information about the Houston Energy Transition Initiative, EnergyCapitalHTX's presenting sponsor, visit htxenergytransition.org.

Houston energy expert: How the U.S. can turn carbon into growth

Guets Column

For the past 40 years, climate policy has often felt like two steps forward, one step back. Regulations shift with politics, incentives get diluted, and long-term aspirations like net-zero by 2050 seem increasingly out of reach. Yet greenhouse gases continue to rise, and the challenges they pose are not going away.

This matters because the costs are real. Extreme weather is already straining U.S. power grids, damaging homes, and disrupting supply chains. Communities are spending more on recovery while businesses face rising risks to operations and assets. So, how can the U.S. prepare and respond?

The Baker Institute Center for Energy Studies (CES) points to two complementary strategies. First, invest in large-scale public adaptation to protect communities and infrastructure. Second, reframe carbon as a resource, not just a waste stream to be reduced.

Why Focusing on Emissions Alone Falls Short

Peter Hartley argues that decades of global efforts to curb emissions have done little to slow the rise of CO₂. International cooperation is difficult, the costs are felt immediately, and the technologies needed are often expensive. Emissions reduction has been the central policy tool for decades, and it has been neither sufficient nor effective.

One practical response is adaptation, which means preparing for climate impacts we can’t avoid. Some of these measures are private, taken by households or businesses to reduce their own risks, such as farmers shifting crop types, property owners installing fire-resistant materials, or families improving insulation. Others are public goods that require policy action. These include building stronger levees and flood defenses, reinforcing power grids, upgrading water systems, revising building codes, and planning for wildfire risks. Such efforts protect people today while reducing long-term costs, and they work regardless of the source of extreme weather. Adaptation also does not depend on global consensus; each country, state, or city can act in its own interest. Many of these measures even deliver benefits beyond weather resilience, such as stronger infrastructure and improved security against broader threats.

McKinsey research reinforces this logic. Without a rapid scale-up of climate adaptation, the U.S. will face serious socioeconomic risks. These include damage to infrastructure and property from storms, floods, and heat waves, as well as greater stress on vulnerable populations and disrupted supply chains.

Making Carbon Work for Us

While adaptation addresses immediate risks, Ken Medlock points to a longer-term opportunity: turning carbon into value.

Carbon can serve as a building block for advanced materials in construction, transportation, power transmission, and agriculture. Biochar to improve soils, carbon composites for stronger and lighter products, and next-generation fuels are all examples. As Ken points out, carbon-to-value strategies can extend into construction and infrastructure. Beyond creating new markets, carbon conversion could deliver lighter and more resilient materials, helping the U.S. build infrastructure that is stronger, longer-lasting, and better able to withstand climate stress.

A carbon-to-value economy can help the U.S. strengthen its manufacturing base and position itself as a global supplier of advanced materials.

These solutions are not yet economic at scale, but smart policies can change that. Expanding the 45Q tax credit to cover carbon use in materials, funding research at DOE labs and universities, and supporting early markets would help create the conditions for growth.

Conclusion

Instead of choosing between “doing nothing” and “net zero at any cost,” we need a third approach that invests in both climate resilience and carbon conversion.

Public adaptation strengthens and improves the infrastructure we rely on every day, including levees, power grids, water systems, and building standards that protect communities from climate shocks. Carbon-to-value strategies can complement these efforts by creating lighter, more resilient carbon-based infrastructure.

CES suggests this combination is a pragmatic way forward. As Peter emphasizes, adaptation works because it is in each nation’s self-interest. And as Ken reminds us, “The U.S. has a comparative advantage in carbon. Leveraging it to its fullest extent puts the U.S. in a position of strength now and well into the future.”

-----------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally appeared on LinkedIn.

UH launches new series on AI’s impact on the energy sector

where to be

The University of Houston's Energy Transition Institute has launched a new Energy in Action Seminar Series that will feature talks focused on the intersection of the energy industry and digitization trends, such as AI.

The first event in the series took place earlier this month, featuring Raiford Smith, global market lead for power & energy for Google Cloud, who presented "AI, Energy, and Data Centers." The talk discussed the benefits of widespread AI adoption for growth in traditional and low-carbon energy resources.

Future events include:

“Through this timely and informative seminar series, ETI will bring together energy professionals, researchers, students, and anyone working in or around digital innovation in energy," Debalina Sengupta, chief operating officer of ETI, said in a news release. "We encourage industry members and students to register now and reap the benefits of participating in both the seminar and the reception, which presents a fantastic opportunity to stay ahead of industry developments and build a strong network in the Greater Houston energy ecosystem.”

The series is slated to continue throughout 2026. Each presentation is followed by a one-hour networking reception. Register for the next event here.

View All Listings