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.

The Supreme Court will not hear an appeal from oil and gas companies. Photo by Getty Images

Supreme Court declines to hear from oil and gas companies trying to block climate change lawsuits

The Supreme Court said Monday, January 13, it won’t hear an appeal from oil and gas companies trying to block lawsuits seeking to hold the industry liable for billions of dollars in damage linked to climate change.

The order allows the city of Honolulu's lawsuit against oil and gas companies to proceed. The city's chief resilience officer, Ben Sullivan, said it's a significant decision that will protect "taxpayers and communities from the immense costs and consequences of the climate crisis caused by the defendants’ misconduct.”

The industry has faced a series of cases alleging it deceived the public about how fossil fuels contribute to climate change. Governments in states including California, Colorado and New Jersey are seeking billions of dollars in damages from things like wildfires, rising sea levels and severe storms. The lawsuits come during a wave of legal actions in the U.S. and worldwide seeking to leverage action on climate change through the courts.

The oil and gas companies appealed to the Supreme Court after Hawaii's highest court allowed the lawsuit to proceed. The companies include Sunoco, Shell, Chevron, Exxon Mobil and BP, many of which are headquartered in Texas.

The companies argued emissions are a national issue that should instead be fought over in federal court, where they've successfully had suits tossed out.

“The stakes in this case could not be higher," attorneys wrote in court documents. The lawsuits “present a serious threat to one of the nation’s most vital industries.”

The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, said declining to hear the Honolulu case now means the companies could face more lawsuits from activists trying to “make themselves the nation's energy regulators.”

“I hope that the Court will hear the issue someday, for the sake of constitutional accountability and the public interest,” said Adam White, a senior fellow at the institute.

The Democratic Biden administration had weighed in at the justices' request and urged them to reject the case, saying it's fair to keep it in state court at this point — though the administration acknowledged that the companies could eventually prevail.

The incoming Republican Trump administration is expected to take a sharply different view of environmental law and energy production.

Honolulu argued it's made a strong case under state laws against deceptive marketing and it should be allowed to play out there. “Deceptive commercial practices fall squarely within the core interests and historic powers of the states,” attorneings wrote.

Environmental regulations, meanwhile, have not always fared well overall before the conservative-majority court. In 2022, the justices limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. In June, the court halted the agency’s air-pollution-fighting “good neighbor” rule.

Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from consideration of the appeal. He did not specify a reason, but he owns stock in companies affected by the lawsuits, according to his most recent financial disclosure.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

Solar surpasses coal to become ERCOT’s third-largest power source in 2025

by the numbers

Solar barely eclipsed coal to become the third biggest source of energy generated for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) in 2025, according to new data.

In 2024, solar represented 10 percent of energy supplied to the ERCOT electric grid. Last year, that number climbed to 14 percent. During the same period, coal’s share remained at 13 percent.

From the largest to smallest share, here’s the breakdown of other ERCOT energy sources in 2025 compared with 2024:

  • Combined-cycle gas: 33 percent, down from 35 percent in 2024
  • Wind: 23 percent, down from 24 percent in 2024
  • Natural gas: 8 percent, down from 9 percent in 2024
  • Nuclear: 8 percent, unchanged from 2024
  • Other sources: 1 percent, unchanged from 2024

Combined, solar and wind accounted for 37 percent of ERCOT energy sources.

Looking ahead, solar promises to reign as the star of the ERCOT show:

  • An ERCOT report released in December 2024 said solar is on track to continue outpacing other energy sources in terms of growth of installed generating capacity, followed by battery energy storage.
  • In December, ERCOT reported that more than 11,100 megawatts of new generating capacity had been added to its grid since the previous winter. One megawatt of electricity serves about 250 homes in peak-demand periods. Battery energy storage made up 47 percent of the new capacity, with solar in second place at 40 percent.

The mix of ERCOT’s energy is critical to Texas’ growing need for electricity, as ERCOT manages about 90 percent of the electric load for the state, including the Houston metro area. Data centers, AI and population growth are driving heightened demand for electricity.

In the first nine months of 2025, Texas added a nation-leading 7.4 gigawatts of solar capacity, according to a report from data and analytics firm Wood Mackenzie and the Solar Energy Industries Association.

“Remarkable growth in Texas, Indiana, Utah and other states ... shows just how decisively the market is moving toward solar,” says Abigail Ross Hopper, president and CEO of the solar association.

New UH white paper pushes for national plastics recycling policy

plastics paper

The latest white paper from the University of Houston’s Energy Transition Institute analyzes how the U.S. currently handles plastics recycling and advocates for a national, policy-driven approach.

Ramanan Krishnamoorti, vice president for energy and innovation at UH; Debalina Sengupta, assistant vice president and chief operating officer at the Energy Transition Institute; and UH researcher Aparajita Datta authored the paper titled “Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for Plastics Packaging: Gaps, Challenges and Opportunities for Policies in the United States.” In the paper, the scientists argue that the current mix of state laws and limited recycling infrastructure are holding back progress at the national level.

EPR policies assign responsibility for the end-of-life management of plastic packaging to producers or companies, instead of taxpayers, to incentivize better product design and reduce waste.

“My hope is this research will inform government agencies on what policies could be implemented that would improve how we approach repurposing plastics in the U.S.,” Krishnamoorti said in a news release. “Not only will this information identify policies that help reduce waste, but they could also prove to be a boon to the circular economy as they can identify economically beneficial pathways to recycle materials.”

The paper notes outdated recycling infrastructure and older technology as roadblocks.

Currently, only seven states have passed EPR laws for plastic packaging. Ten others are looking to pass similar measures, but each looks different, according to UH. Additionally, each state also has its own reporting system, which leads to incompatible datasets. Developing national EPR policies or consistent nationwide standards could lead to cleaner and more efficient processes, the report says.

The researchers also believe that investing in sorting, processing facilities, workforce training and artificial intelligence could alleviate issues for businesses—and particularly small businesses, which often lack the resources to manage complex reporting systems. Digital infrastructure techniques and moving away from manual data collection could also help.

Public education on recycling would also be “imperative” to the success of new policies, the report adds.

“Experts repeatedly underscored that public education and awareness about EPR, including among policymakers, are dismal,” the report reads. “Infrastructural limitations, barriers to access and the prevailing belief that curbside recycling is ineffective in the U.S. contribute to public dissatisfaction, misinformation and, in some cases, opposition toward the use of taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ contributions for EPR.”

For more information, read the full paper here.

Investment bank opens energy-focused office in Houston

new to hou

Investment bank Cohen & Co. Capital Markets has opened a Houston office to serve as the hub of its energy advisory business and has tapped investment banking veteran Rahul Jasuja as the office’s leader.

Jasuja joined Cohen & Co. Capital Markets, a subsidiary of financial services company Cohen & Co., as managing director, and head of energy and energy transition investment banking. Cohen’s capital markets arm closed $44 billion worth of deals last year.

Jasuja previously worked at energy-focused Houston investment bank Mast Capital Advisors, where he was managing director of investment banking. Before Mast Capital, Jasuja was director of energy investment banking in the Houston office of Wells Fargo Securities.

“Meeting rising [energy] demand will require disciplined capital allocation across traditional energy, sustainable fuels, and firm, dispatchable solutions such as nuclear and geothermal,” Jasuja said in a news release. “Houston remains the center of gravity where capital, operating expertise, and execution come together to make that transition investable.”

The Houston office will focus on four energy verticals:

  • Energy systems such as nuclear and geothermal
  • Energy supply chains
  • Energy-transition fuel and technology
  • Traditional energy
“We are making a committed investment in Houston because we believe the infrastructure powering AI, defense, and energy transition — from nuclear to rare-earth technology — represents the next secular cycle of value creation,” Jerry Serowik, head of Cohen & Co. Capital Markets, added in the release.
View All Listings