The NRC was the undisputed final word in what goes for nuclear energy in the United States. Did the overturning of the longstanding Chevron decision now put the courts above the regulatory agency?
I predict that there will be less change in nuclear precisely because it’s not as subject to executive whims. In fact it’s other agencies that are making new regulations without Congress that are the bigger issue in the energy space. Look at how the Keystone XL pipeline was subject to executive whim. And that project was also a key part of North American energy independence.
This is entirely backwards. The US refinery complex is mostly tuned for Heavy Sour crude grades which come from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. Getting a source from Canada would avoid all the carbon intensive ocean shipping, etc. and give a more secure source from a democracy next door.
All the oil will be burned by someone- the Canadian oil just goes west now instead of south and we continue to financially support Nicolas Maduro while he starves his people. Sounds pretty progressive to me.
Good commentary! But the NRC has a commission who manages the agency. Like anywhere else, the commission has had good and bad members. But maybe that is the template going forward in a post Chevron world?
I’m very glad to say that Jeff Baran was not offered another term and apparently other commission members now have to fear getting “Baran’ed” but all that was before this Chevron stuff.
Thanks - you raise some excellent questions. It seems to me that this Supreme Court decision throws a lot of responsibility back to Congress, because the Supreme Court's job is to interpret the law and determine if it's constitutional. As you said, the court judges are not expert scientists. It's not their job to interpret regulations - just to decide if the underlying law is constitutional, and if the regulators are following the law or if they are overreaching and going beyond the law; in effect trying to become
unelected legislators (which so many of them have definitely been doing). That's the basic problem the court addressed - regulatory agencies do not have the constitutional right or authority to legislate.
They should never be the last word. And yes, this could be a momentous, historical decision.
Well said Al! In the short run I think this ruling have the potential to cause a lot of chaos. But on the bright side it might lead as you suggest to regulations that are more tightly bound to underlying law.
"On the down side, should we trust the courts to be better arbiters of how nuclear power plants should be regulated than the actual agency set up to regulate them?" Yes. Regulatory agencies are inherently motivated to expand their power. That means a growing burden of irrational regulations. The courts lack that motive. I also think it unlikely that courts would rule on technical matters without listening to technical experts. They will rule on the interpretation of the law, as is their proper job.
The NRC has been such a disaster for nuclear that it would be almost impossible for the new vigor of the courts to make things worse. This seems like a real chance to scale back regulatory obstructions and unleash a growing boom in nuclear power.
This is not bad at all. If a law written by congress doesn’t create the desired outcome, then congress can change it. That is their job. We have unfortunately let them delegate to the “experts” (aka political appointees) in the executive branch agencies way too much and now congress just has silly hearings about culture war stuff to get TV hits instead of doing anything useful. Time for them to get back to work- their popularity might even improve…
Not sure about how this affects the NRC as they are not directly part of the executive branch, but EPA has been going absolutely hog wild with impossible to meet regulations lately (Just see their new power plant emission plans for how crazy this is). Unfortunately there are never a good class of “experts” that can be trusted as things always become political when the government is involved. Regulations create winners and losers who will fight over things non stop no matter what, and congress and the courts are where that is supposed to happen.
The EPA still exists- nobody is going back to 1950. They can regulate things that Congress has delegated to them through the clean air and clean water acts (put in place by republican presidents by the way…)
What they can’t do is now decide that your front yard is a “water of the US” and stop you from mowing your lawn because it rains sometimes. Or they can’t just magically define CO2 as a “pollutant” when it hasn’t been clearly defined by Congress. Getting rid of Chevron just provides an avenue for redress of grievances that didn’t exist before.
"In the worst-case scenario, rogue judges are now empowered to issue out-of-pocket decisions on highly technical matters they don’t actually understand."
We're already in that worst case scenario. We also have regulators who don't understand what they're regulating, and that will only get worse if DEI prevails. Overall, I applaud the decision. The administrative state is out of control. And an increasingly lazy Congress has simply been passing along the difficult decisions to the unaccountable agencies so that Congressmen can avoid blame, claiming to be on whichever side of a controversial issue turns out to be electorally advantageous.
I predict that there will be less change in nuclear precisely because it’s not as subject to executive whims. In fact it’s other agencies that are making new regulations without Congress that are the bigger issue in the energy space. Look at how the Keystone XL pipeline was subject to executive whim. And that project was also a key part of North American energy independence.
Great point Brad!
Keystone had nothing to do with “North American energy independence”. All the oil was for export.
Tar’s sands oil is the dirtiest and creates the most CO2 per unit of energy produced of any oil.
This is entirely backwards. The US refinery complex is mostly tuned for Heavy Sour crude grades which come from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. Getting a source from Canada would avoid all the carbon intensive ocean shipping, etc. and give a more secure source from a democracy next door.
All the oil will be burned by someone- the Canadian oil just goes west now instead of south and we continue to financially support Nicolas Maduro while he starves his people. Sounds pretty progressive to me.
Good commentary! But the NRC has a commission who manages the agency. Like anywhere else, the commission has had good and bad members. But maybe that is the template going forward in a post Chevron world?
I’m very glad to say that Jeff Baran was not offered another term and apparently other commission members now have to fear getting “Baran’ed” but all that was before this Chevron stuff.
Thanks - you raise some excellent questions. It seems to me that this Supreme Court decision throws a lot of responsibility back to Congress, because the Supreme Court's job is to interpret the law and determine if it's constitutional. As you said, the court judges are not expert scientists. It's not their job to interpret regulations - just to decide if the underlying law is constitutional, and if the regulators are following the law or if they are overreaching and going beyond the law; in effect trying to become
unelected legislators (which so many of them have definitely been doing). That's the basic problem the court addressed - regulatory agencies do not have the constitutional right or authority to legislate.
They should never be the last word. And yes, this could be a momentous, historical decision.
Well said Al! In the short run I think this ruling have the potential to cause a lot of chaos. But on the bright side it might lead as you suggest to regulations that are more tightly bound to underlying law.
"On the down side, should we trust the courts to be better arbiters of how nuclear power plants should be regulated than the actual agency set up to regulate them?" Yes. Regulatory agencies are inherently motivated to expand their power. That means a growing burden of irrational regulations. The courts lack that motive. I also think it unlikely that courts would rule on technical matters without listening to technical experts. They will rule on the interpretation of the law, as is their proper job.
The NRC has been such a disaster for nuclear that it would be almost impossible for the new vigor of the courts to make things worse. This seems like a real chance to scale back regulatory obstructions and unleash a growing boom in nuclear power.
And courts are not motivated to increase their power?
I think this Supreme Court has amply demonstrated that they have no issue grabbing power.
The problem is they are answerable to no one on, anything, ever.
Some members have clearly shown a total disregard for any ethics of any kind.
Courts cannot hire more judges.
This is not bad at all. If a law written by congress doesn’t create the desired outcome, then congress can change it. That is their job. We have unfortunately let them delegate to the “experts” (aka political appointees) in the executive branch agencies way too much and now congress just has silly hearings about culture war stuff to get TV hits instead of doing anything useful. Time for them to get back to work- their popularity might even improve…
Not sure about how this affects the NRC as they are not directly part of the executive branch, but EPA has been going absolutely hog wild with impossible to meet regulations lately (Just see their new power plant emission plans for how crazy this is). Unfortunately there are never a good class of “experts” that can be trusted as things always become political when the government is involved. Regulations create winners and losers who will fight over things non stop no matter what, and congress and the courts are where that is supposed to happen.
I think you have forgotten how bad the environment was before the EPA came into being.
When the only measurement is the bottom line sh!t is the result.
While the EPA is not perfect the alternative is way, way worse.
The EPA still exists- nobody is going back to 1950. They can regulate things that Congress has delegated to them through the clean air and clean water acts (put in place by republican presidents by the way…)
What they can’t do is now decide that your front yard is a “water of the US” and stop you from mowing your lawn because it rains sometimes. Or they can’t just magically define CO2 as a “pollutant” when it hasn’t been clearly defined by Congress. Getting rid of Chevron just provides an avenue for redress of grievances that didn’t exist before.
"In the worst-case scenario, rogue judges are now empowered to issue out-of-pocket decisions on highly technical matters they don’t actually understand."
We're already in that worst case scenario. We also have regulators who don't understand what they're regulating, and that will only get worse if DEI prevails. Overall, I applaud the decision. The administrative state is out of control. And an increasingly lazy Congress has simply been passing along the difficult decisions to the unaccountable agencies so that Congressmen can avoid blame, claiming to be on whichever side of a controversial issue turns out to be electorally advantageous.
Good grief another DEI nut.
If you deconstruct anti-DEI arguments they basically boil down to “white males are better”