Adrian Hedden
Carlsbad Current-Argus
achedden@currentargus.com

A U.S. Supreme Court decision could pave the way for a private company to store spent nuclear fuel rods from power plants across the country in the Permian Basin.

In a 6-3 decision on Wednesday, June 18, the Supreme Court ruled against the State of Texas and oil company Fasken Oil and Ranch, which sought to block a license issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Interim Storage Partners – a nuclear technology company that sought to build and operate the facility in Andrews, Texas.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted the Texas site a license in 2021 along with another in 2023 for Holtec International to build a similar facility near the Eddy-Lea county line in New Mexico.

Under 40-year licenses, which could be renewed, both facilities would gather spent nuclear fuel rods via rail from power plants throughout the U.S. and store them in 40-foot casks on the surface. In total, Holtec’s site could store more than 100,000 metric tons of the material, while the Interim Storage Partners facility would contain about 40,000 metric tons.

The state of Texas and Fasken filed an appeal challenging the Interim Storage license and the state of New Mexico appealed the Holtec license. The licenses were vacated in separate decisions in 2023 by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The court said the licenses were invalid under a provision of the federal Atomic Energy Act that specifies spent nuclear fuel can only be moved to a permanent, deep geological repository owned by the federal government.

In vacating the licenses, the appeals court contended the Nuclear Regulatory Commission lacked the authority to approve offsite spent fuel storage by private companies.

Those rulings were appealed last year to the U.S. Supreme Court in separate fillings by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the companies. The appeals were consolidated, meaning any ruling on the Texas case would also apply to the New Mexico proposal. The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 18 ruling overturned the appellate court’s 2023 decisions vacating the licenses.

Supreme Court sidesteps authority question

Justices Brett Kavanaugh, John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred in the court’s written decision that Fasken Oil and Ranch and the state of Texas lacked grounds to challenge the licenses as they were not legal parties to the initial process.

The court’s written decision expressly did not give an opinion on the commission’s authority to issue the licenses under federal law.

“We disagree with each of Texas’s and Fasken’s arguments. They were not parties to the Commission’s licensing proceeding and therefore cannot obtain judicial review of the Commission’s licensing decision,” read the opinion.

Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. In the dissenting opinion given by Gorsuch, the justices argued the Nuclear Regulatory Commission illegally granted the license in the first place, contending that federal law only allows storage of nuclear waste – such as the fuel rods – at the reactor site or federally-owned facility.

The dissenting justices also argued that Texas and Fasken were present and participated during the public comment period and hearings throughout the licensing process, asserting that the court’s opinion was based on a legal technicality rather than federal law and the safety of the American people.

“Radioactive waste poses risks to the State, its citizens, its lands, air, and waters, and it poses dangers as well to a neighbor and its employees,” read the dissenting opinion. “Maybe the agency’s internal rules governing who can participate in its hearing are highly restrictive. Maybe those rules are themselves unlawful.”

Risk or reward?

Jack Volpato, who chairs the Carlsbad Mayor’s Nuclear Task Force, said the decision could mean an economic boon for the local economy.

The plan to store spent nuclear fuel was supported by local leaders in Carlsbad, Hobbs, and Eddy and Lea counties. The entities formed a consortium known as the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance which provided the land and recruited Holtec to build the facility.

At the helm of the task force, Volpato worked to continue supporting the Holtec project, along with operations at the nearby Waste Isolation Pilot Plant – a repository for nuclear waste produced at federal facilities around the country. The facility is about 30 miles east of Carlsbad.

Volpato said Holtec could join WIPP in providing a stable, continual nuclear industry in southeast New Mexico, insulating the region from dramatic market shifts in the oil and gas industry – the region’s main economic driver.

“These are high-paying, stable jobs and they diversify our economy,” Volpato said of the region’s growing nuclear sector. “If one of the extractive industries goes down, this can prop us up.”

He also said that if the Holtec project comes to fruition, it could attract future development in spent nuclear fuel processing, research and manufacturing.

“It really puts us first in line (for reprocessing), if we have spent nuclear fuel right here,” Volpato said. “There’s a lot of good things that could come from interim storage. It also puts pressure on the (Department of Energy) to find a permanent repository.”

But New Mexico’s environmental community charged that the economic benefit for one part of the state was not worth the risk nuclear storage posed to all of New Mexico.

For this reason, the project was also opposed by New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, and a bill was passed by the state’s Legislature in 2023 to block any permits from being issued by New Mexico agencies that would allow such a site to operate.

In reaction to the Supreme Court ruling, national group Beyond Nuclear – which represented the Sierra Club’s chapters in New Mexico and Texas in filing comments to oppose the project – said it planned to pursue a new challenge to the licenses.

Beyond Nuclear attorney Diane Curran said future litigation would reveal the storage facilities were illegal under federal law.

“We look forward to resuming our litigation in the D.C. Circuit, where we will demonstrate that the law unequivocally prohibits Holtec’s private storage of federally owned spent fuel,” she said.

Managing Editor Adrian Hedden can be reached at 575-628-5516, or @AdrianHedden on the social media platform X.

Adrian Hedden
Artesia Daily Press
achedden@currentargus.com

New Mexico leaders debate impacts of military escalation

In the days after U.S. airstrikes on three key Iranian nuclear sites, New Mexico leaders responded to President Donald Trump’s use of military force in the Middle East.

Democrats criticized the president for “unilateral” use of military force while Republicans supported the attacks as necessary amid growing hostility in the region.

New Mexico Rep. Jim Townsend (R-34), who represents Eddy and Otero counties, said Monday that the strikes were “unfortunate” but necessary as Iran appeared to be building its nuclear arsenal.

He said it was clear the bombings were “the last resort” as diplomacy broke down in Iran.

“Presidents have historically done everything to appease, and none of that worked,” Townsend said. “The Iranian administration continued to be untruthful about its nuclear progress. I don’t think there was any doubt of their intentions.

“I support the president, and he has stayed true to his cause of putting America first.”

The state’s all-Democrat congressional delegation in a series of statements on Saturday and Sunday criticized Trump’s decision to join Israel’s military campaign against Iran, maintaining that only Congress could declare war and that the Trump administration’s escalation of military action in the Middle East must be halted for the sake of global peace.

“Mr. President let’s be clear: Only Congress has the power to declare war, and we have not,” said U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) in a Sunday Facebook post. “What we urgently need is to return to diplomacy, even if I am skeptical in this president’s ability to do that, or much else. Above all, I want our service members and Americans to know I stand with you.”

U.S. forces struck Iran’s three main nuclear sites, Trump said late on Saturday, and he warned Tehran it would face more devastating attacks if it does not agree to peace.

“The strikes were a spectacular military success,” Trump said in a televised address. “Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.”

In a speech that lasted just over three minutes, Trump said Iran’s future held “either peace or tragedy,” and there were many other targets that could be hit by the U.S. military.

“If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill,” Trump said.

But U.S. Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-NM), who represents the state’s southern 2nd Congressional District, said peace could only come through diplomacy, not military force.

“Congress — not any one president — has the constitutional authority to declare war,” Vasquez posted to X on Saturday. “Military escalation in Iran puts American troops, our allies, and global stability at great risk. The American people want peace, not another prolonged war.”

The U.S. reached out to Iran diplomatically on Saturday to say the strikes were the only attacks planned and the U.S. is not seeking regime change, CBS News reported.

Trump said U.S. forces struck Iran’s three principal nuclear sites: Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow. He told Fox News host Sean Hannity that six bunker-buster bombs were dropped on Fordow, while 30 Tomahawk missiles were fired against other nuclear sites.

B-2 bombers were also involved in the strikes, a U.S. official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “Fordow is gone.”

The strikes led to the Iranian Parliament voting to close the Straight of Hormuz, which could cut off the shipping route for about 20 million barrels of oil per day, reported Power the Future – an oil and gas trade group that frequently lobbies for industry interests in New Mexico.

Executive Director Daniel Turner said this action was intended to “use energy as a weapon” and drive-up fuel costs for Americans by impacting the nation’s oil supply.

Turner countered that increased U.S. oil and gas production, largely in the Permian Basin region in southeast New Mexico and West Texas, would help the U.S. support its own needs against hostility from Iran in response to the attacks.

He pointed to about 13.5 million barrels per day produced in the U.S. in March, according to the latest report from the Energy Information Administration, the most ever recorded by the agency since it started tracking production in 1920.

“Iran is trying to use energy as a weapon, but thanks to America’s energy workers we’re producing more oil than ever and in a stronger position to withstand aggression like this,” Turner said.

Reuters contributed to this story.

Managing Editor Adrian Hedden can be reached at 575-628-5516, or @AdrianHedden on the social media platform X.

Photo by Mike Smith, Artesia Daily Press

Saturday, June 14, food trucks, baked goods and homemade items waited for customers at the monthly Oil Patch Market in downtown Artesia.

Sondra Bailey from Carlsbad sold chain male items, homemade bread and leather fresheners.

“It gives me something to do and I can try and make money off of it,” she said as customers were walking by her booth along Main Street.

Mary Pettus of Sun Country Home and Gardens Nursery was there selling plants and homemade pecans and honey.

“The local honey is from a beekeeper in Carlsbad,” she said.

The next market is from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. July 12.