The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 specifically reserved regulation of atomic (nuclear) energy to the federal government. Over the years, there have been numerous court cases that have upheld federal jurisdiction over nuclear safety. States have many rights on land use and other permitting areas that give them the ability to NOT host nuclear plants if they choose that course of action.
There is no legal way for a state to declare that it will allow a nuclear plant that isn't licensed and overseen by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. There are provision in law for the NRC to delegate oversight for certain activities - like uranium mining or medical isotopes - but there are no states with delegated authority over nuclear power plants.
Perhaps in 1954 the US wanted to discourage states from building atomic weapons. The analysis you quote is from 1976; much has changed since regarding pre-emption and supremacy ideas. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-10 Lawyers would have a fest.
Indeed. The issue is: is the Atomic Energy Act constitutional.? The 10th Amendment says
The powers not delegated to the United States by, the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Period. Nowhere in the Constitution are teh Feds given the power to regulate nuclear power. The NRC, EPA, etc rely on a very broad interpretation of the commerce clause which gives the Feds the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes." The middle clause was aimed at preventing
states from erecting trade barriers with other states such as import duties, which was a real problem under the Articles of Confederation.
Only under a preposterously tortured interpretation of the Commerce Clause can it apply to a strictly intra-State grid. If Hawaii were to challenge the AEA's ability to regulate her electricity grid, I think there's a good chance that the current Supreme Court would rule in her favor. A strict constructionist really has no other option.
And for those who believe that the Constitution isa living document and can be interpreted in the light of current mores, what better way of getting rid of a bureaucracy which is doing mortal harm to society.
Interestingly there is a specific statute in New Hampshire at least from the 1950s that specifically delegates all nuclear regulatory authority to the AEC/NRC and makes it a violation of state law not to abide by NRC rules and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
For all the anti nuclear protests over Seabrook in the 1970 that all throughout that time period it was the official policy of the NH legislature to endorse the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
" 162-B:1 Declaration of Policy. –
I. The state of New Hampshire endorses the action of the Congress of the United States in enacting the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to institute a program to encourage the widespread participation in the development and utilization of atomic energy for peaceful purposes to the maximum extent consistent with the common defense and security and with the health and safety of the public; and therefore declares the policy of the state to be, (1) To cooperate actively in the program thus instituted; and (2) To the extent that the regulation of special nuclear materials and by-product materials, of production facilities and utilization facilities, and of persons operating such facilities, may be within the jurisdiction of the state, to provide for the exercise of the state's regulatory authority so as to conform, as nearly as may be, to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and regulations issued thereunder, to the end that there may, in effect, be a single harmonious system of regulation within the state.
II. The state of New Hampshire recognizes that the development of industries producing or utilizing atomic energy may result in new conditions calling for changes in the laws of the state and in regulations issued thereunder with respect to health and safety, working conditions, workers' compensation, transportation, public utilities, life, health, accident, fire, and casualty insurance, the conservation of natural resources, including wildlife, and the protection of streams, rivers and airspace from pollution, and therefore declares the policy of the state to be, (1) To adapt its laws and regulations to meet the new conditions in ways that will encourage the healthy development of industries producing or utilizing atomic energy while at the same time protecting the public interest; and (2) To initiate continuing studies of the need for changes in the relevant laws and regulations of the state by the respective departments and agencies of state government responsible for their administration; and (3) To assure the coordination of the studies thus undertaken, particularly with other atomic industrial development activities of the state and with the development and regulatory activities of other states and of the government of the United States.
True. But Hawaii has mandated a zero CO2 grid by 2045. The plan is to rely on wind, solar and batteries. This is not going to work. When that becomes clear, they will have little choice but to turn to Pele.
Jack:
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 specifically reserved regulation of atomic (nuclear) energy to the federal government. Over the years, there have been numerous court cases that have upheld federal jurisdiction over nuclear safety. States have many rights on land use and other permitting areas that give them the ability to NOT host nuclear plants if they choose that course of action.
There is no legal way for a state to declare that it will allow a nuclear plant that isn't licensed and overseen by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. There are provision in law for the NRC to delegate oversight for certain activities - like uranium mining or medical isotopes - but there are no states with delegated authority over nuclear power plants.
https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1336&context=tlr
Perhaps in 1954 the US wanted to discourage states from building atomic weapons. The analysis you quote is from 1976; much has changed since regarding pre-emption and supremacy ideas. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-10 Lawyers would have a fest.
Indeed. The issue is: is the Atomic Energy Act constitutional.? The 10th Amendment says
The powers not delegated to the United States by, the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Period. Nowhere in the Constitution are teh Feds given the power to regulate nuclear power. The NRC, EPA, etc rely on a very broad interpretation of the commerce clause which gives the Feds the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes." The middle clause was aimed at preventing
states from erecting trade barriers with other states such as import duties, which was a real problem under the Articles of Confederation.
Only under a preposterously tortured interpretation of the Commerce Clause can it apply to a strictly intra-State grid. If Hawaii were to challenge the AEA's ability to regulate her electricity grid, I think there's a good chance that the current Supreme Court would rule in her favor. A strict constructionist really has no other option.
And for those who believe that the Constitution isa living document and can be interpreted in the light of current mores, what better way of getting rid of a bureaucracy which is doing mortal harm to society.
Interestingly there is a specific statute in New Hampshire at least from the 1950s that specifically delegates all nuclear regulatory authority to the AEC/NRC and makes it a violation of state law not to abide by NRC rules and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
https://gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XII/162-B/162-B-mrg.htm
For all the anti nuclear protests over Seabrook in the 1970 that all throughout that time period it was the official policy of the NH legislature to endorse the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
" 162-B:1 Declaration of Policy. –
I. The state of New Hampshire endorses the action of the Congress of the United States in enacting the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to institute a program to encourage the widespread participation in the development and utilization of atomic energy for peaceful purposes to the maximum extent consistent with the common defense and security and with the health and safety of the public; and therefore declares the policy of the state to be, (1) To cooperate actively in the program thus instituted; and (2) To the extent that the regulation of special nuclear materials and by-product materials, of production facilities and utilization facilities, and of persons operating such facilities, may be within the jurisdiction of the state, to provide for the exercise of the state's regulatory authority so as to conform, as nearly as may be, to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and regulations issued thereunder, to the end that there may, in effect, be a single harmonious system of regulation within the state.
II. The state of New Hampshire recognizes that the development of industries producing or utilizing atomic energy may result in new conditions calling for changes in the laws of the state and in regulations issued thereunder with respect to health and safety, working conditions, workers' compensation, transportation, public utilities, life, health, accident, fire, and casualty insurance, the conservation of natural resources, including wildlife, and the protection of streams, rivers and airspace from pollution, and therefore declares the policy of the state to be, (1) To adapt its laws and regulations to meet the new conditions in ways that will encourage the healthy development of industries producing or utilizing atomic energy while at the same time protecting the public interest; and (2) To initiate continuing studies of the need for changes in the relevant laws and regulations of the state by the respective departments and agencies of state government responsible for their administration; and (3) To assure the coordination of the studies thus undertaken, particularly with other atomic industrial development activities of the state and with the development and regulatory activities of other states and of the government of the United States.
Source. 1955, 281:1, eff. Aug. 1, 1955."
"Will they accept the offer?"
I can't imagine they would. Hawaii is even more beautiful than California, and has an even worse political climate.
Ross,
True. But Hawaii has mandated a zero CO2 grid by 2045. The plan is to rely on wind, solar and batteries. This is not going to work. When that becomes clear, they will have little choice but to turn to Pele.
I thought this piece was going to be about Project Pele: https://www.cto.mil/pele_eis/
Wrong allegory. For someone with a bad reputation, she's a popular lady.
Microreactors are a silly distraction. Everybody wants to ignore the elephant in the room which is omnipotent, monomanically unbalanced regulation.