No one should have been surprised by Idaho Governor Brad Little promoting, as he did a few days ago, nuclear energy research and commerce in the state. That has been more or less standard state policy for a long time.
But the changes and gaps involved raise some questions about the how and why, and about the transition of attitudes toward nuclear power, too.
There was a time when Idaho state government - governors most specifically - had a skeptical and sometimes tense relationship with the state’s nuclear side, especially what is now the Idaho National Laboratory. Long-timers will remember Governor Cecil Andrus shutting down the state’s borders to incoming nuclear waste. He was highly concerned about waste storage there generally: “They took a bulldozer and dug a hole in the sand and put in barrel and paste board boxes, then covered it up with sand and called that storage. And it is above the largest fresh water aquifer in America.”
It wasn’t just Andrus. His successor, Phil Batt, negotiated a deal on waste only after hard negotiations, and he didn’t take compliance for granted. Much of the state, maybe the Magic Valley especially, looked at lab operations uneasily.
Gradually, that concern eased back as waste became a lesser issue (though it’s not gone away completely and some promises were not kept), and the Idaho National Laboratory’s role in the state economy - which is large - moved close to front of mind.
In February 2012, Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter started the Leadership in Nuclear Energy (LINE) Commission, which its website said “makes recommendations to the Governor on policies and actions of the State of Idaho to support and enhance the long-term viability and mission of the Idaho National Laboratory and other nuclear industries in Idaho.” Its membership over the years has included a number of prominent state leaders. Its current website refers to LINE 3.0, suggesting revisions.
LINE was steadily promoted publicly over the years and kept going when Brad Little took over as governor. But it seemed to get less attention in the last few years, and its website indicates the group’s last meeting - at least the last for which an agenda was prepared - was in January 2024. You get the sense, looking from outside, that the effort appeared to be running out of steam. The executive order creating it was allowed to expire earlier this year. (There’s a reference in a new report to a renewal of it being in the works for later this year.)
For the year following, nuclear seems to not have been a front-burner issue for Idaho state government.
Last week, Little announced a new Idaho Advanced Nuclear Energy Task Force and an Advanced Nuclear Strategic Framework which appeared to have been designed to link to Trump Administration nuclear policies.
What prompted this? Here’s a clue: The framework document noted that “the Trump Administration released a series of four nuclear-focused Executive Orders to accelerate the deployment of advanced nuclear reactors. These Executive Orders include actions to streamline the National Environmental Policy Act and environmental reviews, strengthen the domestic nuclear fuel cycle, expand the nuclear energy workforce, and reform the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A key deadline from these Executive Orders is the federal approval of at least three new reactors by July 4, 2026.”
And what actions exactly are intended? Here’s another piece from the new proposal: “In January 2025, Governor Little signed Executive Order 2025-02, the Strategic Permitting, Efficiency, and Economic Development Act (SPEED) aimed at better coordinating state permitting on big projects that promote energy independence, support national security, and drive Idaho’s economy. If supported with adequate funding, SPEED could draw advanced nuclear developers to Idaho by bringing together agency directors — especially those with permitting and regulatory authority and subject matter expertise — to collaboratively reduce barriers and accelerate project timelines.”
The nuclear skepticism of decades past could sometimes be overdone, and the technology around nuclear power has made major advances. That said, you have to wonder who in the state is keeping at least some kind of skeptical eye on what’s hoped to be large-scale and rapid-fire developments in the nuclear field.