You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s decision in the case of Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado enlists the nation’s highest court in the campaign to reform federal environmental enforcement.
A new chapter opened for one of the country’s most important environmental laws this week.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court transformed the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, an environmental permitting law that affects virtually every decision that the federal government makes. The quasi-unanimous ruling limits the law’s scope and cuts off future avenues for challenging energy and infrastructure projects under the law.
It could reshape the scale of legal challenges that projects could face in the future, giving the Trump administration — and any successive administration — greater leeway to approve energy projects.
Under NEPA, federal agencies must study the environmental impacts of their decisions before they make them. The strictest studies can run into the hundreds of pages, and they can take years to complete.
But in what was essentially an 8-0 decision, the Court ruled that federal agencies almost never need to analyze the second-order environmental effects of their decisions. In other words, an agency need only study the environmental impact of a project itself — be it a pipeline, a solar farm, or, in the case at issue, a railroad — and not its metaphorically downstream consequences. That remains the case even if a given project might indirectly make it much easier to do something with a big environmental footprint, such as drilling for oil or natural gas.
That is the clearest effect of the ruling. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the court’s conservative majority, went much further than that summary alone suggests. In a broad and forceful ruling, he told lower courts that they should stop nitpicking the environmental studies that federal agencies must publish under NEPA to justify their own decision-making. Courts should, instead, defer to federal agencies as much as is reasonable when reviewing a NEPA study. “The goal of the law,” he writes, “is to inform agency decision-making, not to paralyze it.” (Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case because of his connection to an oil magnate who could have benefited from the ruling.)
That suggests a significant change is coming to how the court system interprets NEPA, a law that is little known to the general public but that plays a defining role in how federal agencies make decisions or approve infrastructure projects. NEPA creates a procedural requirement that federal agencies study the environmental impact of any “major decision,” but that category is so broad that it affects virtually everything the federal government does — spend money, write a new regulation, or approve a new project on federal land. The law and the yearslong lawsuits that it spawns have been blamed for delays in building solar farms and transmission lines, but also oil refineries and gas pipelines.
Kavanaugh’s ruling is “pretty striking for just how strident it is, and how assertively it tries to shut the door on further NEPA litigation,” Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor who studies the permitting system, told me. Kavanaugh’s message to lower courts is, in essence, “We keep telling you to knock it off. You keep not listening. So knock it the fuck off,” Bagley said.
At the very least, the ruling suggests that a new phase in the effort to reform the country’s permitting laws has arrived. Now that movement has, in essence, been blessed by the Supreme Court.
The case in question — Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado — concerns an 88-mile railroad proposed to connect the Uinta Basin in eastern Utah to the national freight rail network. In 2021, the Surface Transportation Board, a federal agency that regulates railroads, approved the project after completing a roughly 3,600-page study of the railroad’s potential environmental impact.
Almost immediately, environmental groups argued that the board’s study did not go far enough. The ground beneath the Uinta Basin is rich in a waxy and particularly carbon-intensive crude oil; right now, very little of that oil is extracted because the only way to get it out is by truck, along windy mountain roads. The railroad, if built, would allow for much larger volumes of crude to be transported out of the basin and sent to Gulf Coast refineries. Building the railroad, in other words, would indirectly increase local oil extraction, and thereby raise global greenhouse gas emissions.
The board argued that its NEPA study did not need to consider these downstream effects because the board itself does not regulate oil extraction — that is, it regulates the building of railroads, not what gets moved on them.
The eight justices agreed that the board was right: It didn’t have to consider the effects of second-order oil drilling when it approved the railroad. (The railroad remains on hold for other reasons, Sambhav Sankar, a senior vice president at Earthjustice, told me.) But by going further in his ruling, Kavanaugh entered into a running debate about the role of NEPA and other permitting laws in the American economy.
NEPA was never meant to play the commanding role that it does today, Kavanaugh writes. When it was first signed into law in 1970, NEPA was meant to act as a “purely procedural” check on federal decision-making. Agencies were supposed to conduct environmental studies, make their decisions, then move on. But in a famous 1971 ruling concerning a proposed nuclear power plant in Maryland, Judge Skelly Wright of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals transformed the law. He found that agencies had to carry out NEPA’s procedural requirements “to the fullest extent possible,” and crucially that courts could reject agencies’ analysis for lack of completeness.
Over the years, as hundreds of cases following Wright’s have added up, NEPA has turned into a “fearsome project killer,” Bagley said. Agencies spend decades of person-power and hundreds of thousands of dollars to prepare fastidious environmental reviews of their decisions. Any new infrastructure project or new policy change — even New York City’s congestion charge — requires some form of NEPA study.
Many conservatives have long opposed the modern NEPA process. But in recent years, some liberals have joined them, arguing that the law primarily slows down clean energy infrastructure and encourages NIMBYism. In practice, they say, NEPA acts as more of hindrance to the clean economy than the old fossil fuel economy: Because of a 2005 law, most oil and gas drilling has been exempt from the NEPA process, while wind farms, solar plants, and other forms of zero-carbon energy infrastructure still have to face it. Environmental groups rebut that the law is a useful tool to slow down fossil fuel pipelines, which do not generally get a NEPA exemption.
Data supports the idea that NEPA holds back clean energy projects, but that is partly because it holds back so many kinds of projects. The R Street Institute, a center-right think tank, has found that 42% of projects stalled by NEPA involved green infrastructure or conservation. Another analysis from the Center for Growth and Opportunity at Utah State University found that it takes more than two years on average for federal agencies to complete environmental reviews of solar and wind projects. Reviews for new hydroelectric or nuclear power plants take even longer.
Kavanaugh, in essence, rejects all of this. NEPA was never supposed to block or hinder large-scale energy or infrastructure projects, he writes; it was meant to “inform agency decision-making, not to paralyze it.”
“A 1970 legislative acorn has grown over the years into a judicial oak that has hindered infrastructure development ‘under the guise’ of just a little more process,” he says. When federal agencies write environmental studies under NEPA, courts should broadly defer to the decisions that they make. And even if an agency gets something wrong in its study or omits something important, that does not mean the entire study — and the decision that it justifies — should be thrown out. (There’s some irony to Kavanaugh’s call for deference to agencies here, given that the Supreme Court rejected the idea that agency regulations deserve deference last year.)
“What’s notable for me is that they didn’t just rule on the case,” Sankar, the Earthjustice lawyer told me. (Earthjustice participated in the case.) “They decided to take a broad swipe at NEPA itself, really unnecessarily.”
Alexander Mechanick, a senior policy analyst at the Niskanen Center and former White House regulatory official, agreed with Sankar about the scope of the ruling. The court’s decision “does communicate over and over again, with a heavy hand, a real desire to get lower courts out of the business of fly specking the environmental impact assessments,” he told me.
It’s this forthrightness that seems to announce a new era of NEPA jurisprudence — one where the courts will accept a level of environmental review that they may have once rejected. In a way, Kavanaugh’s ruling is a fitting sequel to Wright’s 1971 decision in that both set the tone and capture the overarching environmental concerns of their respective eras, Bagley said.
Half a century ago, Judge Wright wanted to make sure that the American public could slow the wave of infrastructure that threatened to overwhelm the country’s landscape. NEPA represented “the commitment of the government to control, at long last, the destructive engine of material ‘progress,’” he wrote, asserting that judges must make sure the law’s goals are not “lost or misdirected in the vast hallways of the federal bureaucracy.”
Now, Kavanaugh seems to fear that progress itself has been held up. He writes that the modern NEPA process, with its cycles of “speculation and consultation and estimation and litigation,” has slowed down infrastructure projects and driven up their cost. He can sound more like an op-ed writer than a legal scholar as he lays out the law’s consequences in the ruling:
Fewer projects make it to the finish line. Indeed, fewer projects make it to the starting line. Those that survive often end up costing much more than is anticipated or necessary, both for the agency preparing the EIS and for the builder of the project. And that in turn means fewer and more expensive railroads, airports, wind turbines, transmission lines, dams, housing developments, highways, bridges, subways, stadiums, arenas, data centers, and the like. And that also means fewer jobs, as new projects become difficult to finance and build in a timely fashion.
In this declaration, Kavanaugh seems to put himself on the side of a growing and tenuously bipartisan movement to reform NEPA. A 2023 debt ceiling bill, signed by President Biden, included modest reforms to the NEPA process, imposing page limits and deadlines on the strictest forms of environmental studies. A more sweeping bipartisan effort to change the law failed last year. Now, House Republicans are taking their own crack at revising NEPA, creating an optional and more expensive permitting “fast track” for developers in the reconciliation bill.
Sankar, whose organization has championed NEPA, argues that the ruling’s practical upshot will be to allow the Trump administration greater leeway to build fossil fuel infrastructure. Kavanaugh’s ruling exhibits “a shocking disregard for the realpolitik of what's going on with this administration in particular,” he said.
“As we’ve been saying all along, NEPA gets demonized as the problem,” Sankar said. With the law’s role reduced, “I think people will see that there are a lot of other things that are the problem here, and taking federal agency expertise out of the equation is not going to hurry things up.” He added that state and local governments often rely on federal NEPA reports for their own analyses, and now those reviews may be less trustworthy.
Bagley, who has generally supported permitting reform efforts, agreed that NEPA is just one of several laws holding back clean energy projects nationwide. But it is an important one, he said, and reducing its scope will likely allow more projects to happen. He added that by changing it, advocates will learn of additional bottlenecks that are holding back construction — including laws that nobody has noticed yet because they were previously less important than NEPA. Advocates can also now focus their attention on state and local barriers to building.
“If you want to look at the permitting burdens across the United States, probably 80% to 90% of them are state and local. This [ruling] isn’t going to inaugurate a new era of American dynamism,” Bagley said. “It’s a small step in the right direction.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The new Nissan Leaf is joining a whole crop of new electric cars in the $30,000 range.
Here is an odd sentence to write in the year 2025: One of the most interesting electric vehicles on the horizon is the Nissan Leaf.
The Japanese automaker last week revealed new images and specs of the redesign it had teased a few months ago. The new Leaf, which will arrive in 2026, is a small crossover that’s sleeker than, say, a Tesla Model Y, but more spacious than the previous hatchback versions of the car. Nissan promises it will have a max range above 300 miles, while industry experts expect the company to target a starting price not too far above $30,000.
The updated Leaf won’t be one of those EVs that smokes a gas-powered sports car in a drag race, not with the 214 horsepower from that debut version and certainly not with the 174 horsepower from the cheaper version that will arrive later on. Its 150-kilowatt max charging speed lags far behind the blazing fast 350-kilowatt charging capability Hyundai is building into its Ioniq electric vehicles. But because it lacks some of these refinements, the new Nissan may arrive as one of the most compelling of the “affordable” EVs that are, finally, coming to drivers.
Not bad for a car that had become an electric afterthought.
The original Nissan Leaf was a revelation merely for its existence. Never mind that it was a lumpy potato derived from the uninspired Nissan Versa — here was the first mass-market electric car, heralding the age of the EV and welcomed with plenty of “car of the year” laurels at the dawn of the 2010s. Its luster would not last, however, as the arrival of the Tesla Model S a couple of years later stole the world’s attention. The second-generation Leaf that arrived in 2017 was an aesthetic and technological leap forward from its predecessor, with a range that topped 200 miles in its most advanced form. It was, for the time, a pretty good EV. Almost immediately, it was overshadowed by the introduction of Tesla’s Model 3 and Model Y, which catapulted Elon Musk’s company into complete dominance of the global EV market.
It took nearly a decade for Nissan (which fell into corporate mismanagement and outright crisis in the meantime) to update the stale and outdated Leaf. As a result, you might think the new version of the OG EV will arrive just in time to be outshone again. Yet the peculiar nature of the evolving electric car market has created an opportunity for the Leaf to finally grow and thrive.
There was a time when the mythical affordable Tesla could have taken the brand into the entry-level car market, and perhaps below the magic starting price of $30,000. But that has turned out to be a distraction dangled in front of fanboys and investors. In reality, Musk effectively killed the idea as he instead rolled out the Cybertruck and pivoted the company toward the dream of total vehicle autonomy.
Thanks to Tesla’s refusal to act like a normal car company, the affordable EV market is still there for the taking. Some are already in the game: Hyundai’s little Kona Electric starts at $33,000, and I’ve lauded Chevrolet for building a base version of the Equinox EV that starts around $35,000. In the next year or so, an influx of EVs in the $30,000 to $35,000 range might really change the game for electric-curious buyers.
The new Leaf is suddenly a big part of that mix. No, it won’t compete on price with a comparable combustion Nissan like the Kicks crossover that starts in the low $20,000s (not without the $7,500 tax credit, which would have made the new crop of affordable EVs directly cost-competitive with entry-level gas cars). The Leaf is likely to start just above $30,000, with the price creeping higher for buyers who opt for better performance or more range (and as I’ve noted numerous times, you ought to buy all the range you can afford if an EV is going to be your main car).
Arriving next year to compete with the Leaf is the new Chevy Bolt, another revival of an early EV icon. Experts expect a similar price range there. The anticipated Kia EV3 should come to America eventually with a starting cost around $35,000. The Jeff Bezos-backed Slate electric truck shocked the world with its promise of a bare-bones EV in the $20,000s — but, by the time the average buyer adds enough amenities to make it liveable, most Slate trucks will probably top $30,000.
Elon Musk may have abdicated his role as the Leaf’s antagonist via his refusal to build an affordable car, but erstwhile ally Donald Trump is poised to assume the role. Since the Leaf is slated to be built in Japan, the EV would be subject to whatever tariffs might be in place by the time it goes on sale next year. A 25% tariff, plus the federal government’s flip to punishing EVs with penalties instead of rewarding them with incentives, would kill the car’s value proposition in the U.S. Perhaps, then, it will become the next great affordable EV — for everybody else.
On life-threatening temperatures, New York’s nuclear ambitions, and cancelled clean energy projects
Current conditions: Monsoon conditions are bringing flash floods to New Mexico • A heat warning has been issued in Beijing as temperatures creep toward 100 degrees Fahrenheit • It's hot and dry in Tehran today as a tenuous ceasefire between Iran and Israel comes into effect.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced on Monday that she wants to bring new, public nuclear power back to the state. She directed the New York Power Authority, the state power agency, to develop at least 1 gigawatt of new nuclear capacity upstate. Hochul did not specify a design or even a location for the new plant, but based on a few clues in the press release and where Hochul chose to make the announcement, Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin speculates that the project could be a small modular reactor, specifically GE Hitachi’s BWRX-300, one of a handful of SMR designs vying for both regulatory approval and commercial viability in the U.S. “Canada’s Ontario Power Generation recently approved a plan to build one,” Zeitlin notes, “with the idea to eventually build three more for a total 1.2 gigawatts of generating capacity, i.e. roughly the amount Hochul’s targeting.”
The announcement comes at a time when the federal regulatory and tax balance is tipping toward nuclear. The Trump administration issued a fleet of executive orders looking to speed up nuclear construction and regulatory approvals, and Senate Republicans’ version of the mega budget reconciliation bill includes far more generous treatment of nuclear development compared to wind and solar.
The heat dome that’s moving slowly across the U.S. is bringing dangerous conditions to millions of Americans. Multiple cities across the Midwest and East Coast felt hotter than 100 degrees Fahrenheit yesterday, including Chicago, Nashville, and Raleigh. Roads buckled in Missouri. In New York’s Staten Island, the heat index hit 113 degrees. “This is life-threatening,” NYC Emergency Management said in a post on X. “At this level, the human body struggles to cool itself. Prolonged exposure or physical activity can quickly lead to heat stroke.” Power outages were reported in parts of the city. New York Mayor Eric Adams urged residents to help relieve the strain on the electric grid by avoiding using large appliances in the middle of the day, turning off lights, and limiting unnecessary air conditioning use. Wholesale energy prices soared as use skyrocketed. According to AccuWeather, more than 160 daily high temperature records could fall this week before things cool down Wednesday. Nearly 150 million people are affected by some kind of heat alert, and about 10% of the nation’s population will endure temperatures at or above 100 degrees today.
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
About $1.4 billion in clean energy projects were cancelled last month as policy uncertainty mounts and the GOP’s budget reconciliation megabill hacks away at clean energy tax credits and permitting reform. According to a new report from clean energy business group E2, $15.5 billion in new factories and electricity projects have been nixed since the start of 2025, along with the 12,000 new jobs those projects were expected to create. “Republican congressional districts are losing the most,” the report finds. “More than $9 billion in investments and almost 10,000 jobs have been cancelled, delayed, or closed in Republican districts so far in 2025.”
The world added 741 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity last year, according to the new Renewables Global Status Report from Paris-based think tank REN21. That’s a new record, but it still falls far short of the COP28 goal to triple renewables capacity by 2030. In fact, “current trajectories suggest a shortfall of 6.2 terawatts – more than all renewables deployed to date,” the report finds. Here are some other key takeaways:
REN21
The Trump administration will roll back protections for nearly 60 million acres of pristine national forest, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced Monday. Rescinding the 2001 “Roadless Rule” will open vast swathes of the nation’s forests — including Tongass National Forest in Alaska, which is North America’s largest temperate rainforest — to industrial activities. The administration called the rule “overly restrictive,” and said rolling it back will allow for better fire prevention and “responsible” timber production. The logging industry applauded the announcement; conservation groups condemned it. The rollback is likely to be challenged in court.
“I now believe that cleaning up methane leaks from the production and shipping of oil and gas — one of the most significant sources of these emissions — is the best hope we have to avoid triggering some of the most consequential climate tipping points in the next decade. I think realistically it is our only hope.” –Carl Pope, former executive director of the Sierra Club, on his biggest regrets as an environmentalist.
Reading between the lines of Governor Kathy Hochul’s big nuclear announcement.
With New York City temperatures reaching well into the 90s, the state grid running on almost two-thirds fossil fuels, and the man who was instrumental in shutting down one of the state’s largest sources of carbon-free power vying for a political comeback on Tuesday, New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced on Monday that she wants to bring new, public nuclear power back to the state.
Specifically, Hochul directed the New York Power Authority, the state power agency, to develop at least 1 gigawatt of new nuclear capacity upstate. While the New York City region hasn’t had a nuclear power plant since then-Governor Andrew Cuomo shut down Indian Point in 2021, there are three nuclear power plants currently operating closer to the 49th Parallel: Ginna, FitzPatrick, and Nine Mile Point, which together have almost 3.5 gigawatts of capacity and provide about a fifth of the state’s electric power,according to the nuclear advocacy group Nuclear New York. All three are now owned and operated by Constellation Energy, though FitzPatrick was previously owned by NYPA.
Hochul’s announcement did not specify a design or even a location for the new plant, but there were some hints. The press release describes “at least one new nuclear energy facility with no less than one gigawatt of electricity.” While 1 gigawatt is the capacity of a Westinghouse AP1000, the large, light-water reactor built at Plant Vogtle in Georgia, the explanation seems to leave room for the possibility of multiple, smaller plants.
Then there was where Hochul chose to make the announcement, in front of the monumental Robert Moses Niagara Power Plant, which, when it was built in 1961, was the largest hydropower plant in the western hemisphere. The release includes an intriguing reference to the country just on the other side of the river, saying that the plan “will allow for future collaboration with other states and Ontario, building on regional momentum to strengthen nuclear supply chains, share best practices, and support the responsible deployment of advanced nuclear technologies.”
To me at least, all this points to the possibility that we could actually be talking about a small modular reactor, specifically GE Hitachi’s BWRX-300, one of a handful of SMR designs vying for both regulatory approval and commercial viability in the U.S. Canada’s Ontario Power Generation recently approved a plan to build one, with the idea to eventually build three more for a total 1.2 gigawatts of generating capacity, i.e. roughly the amount Hochul’s targeting. The Tennessee Valley Authority, America’s largest public power provider, is also looking at building a BWRX-300. Whichever is completed first will become the first operating SMR in North America. (A NYPA spokesperson told me there has been “no determination on technology yet,” nor on location.)
There are a few policy conclusions we can draw from the announcement, as well, one being that Hochul has determined New York’s energy needs do not match up with its current, renewables-heavy energy roadmap set out more than five years ago. The 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (signed by Cuomo) set out a goal for New York to supply 70% of its electricity with renewables by 2030; about a year ago, the Hochul administration said that it would likely not meet that target, which has only slipped farther from view under the Trump administration’s assault on the offshore wind industry, which was supposed to anchor the state’s renewables supply — especially near New York City, where land is scarce but shoreline is plentiful.
The new nuclear plan also has a distinctively upstate appeal, which is not surprising considering Hochul’s Buffalo roots. (She said during the announcement that she had visited the Niagara plant, which is just outside Buffalo, “so many times.”) The upstate power grid is less carbon intensive than the downstate grid and is due to receive much of the wind and solar development necessary to meet New York’s climate goals. But the northern reaches of the state are also more politically conservative and more rural, making it both an inviting target for renewables development and a potential wellspring of opposition.
“The fundamental challenge of wind, solar, and storage across upstate is that it’s subject to a lot of local opposition,” Ben Furnas, who served as director of the Mayor’s Office of Climate and Sustainability in New York City, told me. “Something that’s remarkable about nuclear power is that the land footprint is more modest.” (The NYPA spokesperson said that NYPA’s own plans for renewable development were not being altered.)
Nuclear power plants can also be economic lifelines — especially in rural areas — due to the permanent, high-paying jobs they support and direct economic benefits to the surrounding communities.
“There’s a lot of real win-win deals to be struck,” Furnas said. “It’s not an unknown, radical, alien notion. Plenty of people work in those plants and live near them. It’s a very different politics than what was happening in Hudson Valley around Indian Point,” where environmental groups like Riverkeeper (long associated with former Cuomo associate and current Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.), had worked for years to shut down the plant.
Monday’s nuclear announcement included supportive quotes not just from the usual suspects of state energy and environmental officials and union leaders, but also from the chief executive of Micron, which is set to start working on a semiconductor fabrication facility in the central part of the state. “A critical factor in the success of the semiconductor ecosystem is access to affordable, reliable energy. We commend New York State for advancing an all-of-the-above energy strategy — including nuclear power,” Micron CEO Sanjay Mehrotra said in a statement.
“To power this one facility, Micron is going to need so much power — so much incredible power — and there’s only one commercially viable option that can deliver that much clean, renewable, reliable power, and that’s what’s been operating in New York for decades: nuclear energy,” Hochul said Monday. “Harnessing the power of the atom is the best way to generate steady zero-emission electricity, and to help this transition.”
The mainstream environmental groups that supported the renewables-focused 2019 law (many of which either oppose nuclear power or are at best neutral towards it) were nowhere to be found during today’s announcement, however, and the plan has already drawn skepticism from some progressives.
Liz Krueger, a Manhattan Democrat who chairs the New York state senate’s finance committee, said in a statement that she had “significant concerns” about the nuclear plan, including its cost effectiveness, how to dispose of nuclear waste, the time required to site and build the project, whether other renewable options could fill the gap instead, and whether it has the “full informed consent from impacted communities.”
“I have yet to see any real-world examples of new nuclear development” that have met all these concerns, Krueger said. New York has a checkered history of nuclear development: Long Island ratepayers spent decadespaying for the completed but never operational Shoreham nuclear plant, whose costs ballooned by billions of dollars as construction dragged on from 1973 to 1984.
But the announcement comes at a time when the federal regulatory and tax balance is tipping toward nuclear regardless. The Trump administration issued a fleet of executive orders looking to speed up nuclear construction and regulatory approvals, and Senate Republicans’ version of the mega budget reconciliation bill includes far more generous treatment of nuclear development compared to wind and solar.
Public Power NY, an advocacy group that supports renewables development by NYPA, expressed skepticism about the nuclear plan in spite of these supportive signs.
“Hochul’s decision to step in based on promises from Donald Trump shows just how unserious she is about New Yorker’s energy bills and climate future. NYPA should be laser focused on rapidly scaling up their buildout of affordable solar and wind which is the only way to meet the state’s science-based climate goals and lower energy bills,” the group said in a statement.
For his part, Furnas was more pragmatic. “It’s really good that Governor Hochul is putting everything on the table when it comes to ensuring reliable generation for New York State and to meet clean air and carbon emission goals,” he said. “It would be foolish and unfortunate to not look at everything she can.”
Hochul herself appears determined to push through.
During the announcement, referring to the buzzing power plant behind her, Hochul said that “belief in sometimes impossible ideas” can bring people together. The power plant currently standing on that site was built in less than three years after an earlier plant on the Niagara collapsed. New nuclear power in New York may have seemed impossible, but it might still happen.