a. About the California Moratorium

The 1976 moratorium was enacted due to concerns about the lack of a permanent federal waste solution (not reactor safety), which was initially intended to be provided through a central repository at Yucca Mountain, until this plan was torpedoed by Nevadans. California Public Resources Code § 25524.1 and 25524.2, prohibits the issuance of siting permits for new plants until a "demonstrated technology" for waste disposal exists. In the landmark case PG&E v. State Energy Comm'n, 461 U.S. 190 (1983), the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that this statute was, in actuality, based on "economic" concerns regarding waste cost uncertainty rather than safety. In this fifty-year interim, despite political obstacles to the creation of a central repository, the industry has managed its waste safely using both cooling ponds and above ground dry cask storage systems. The NRC has confirmed that these "spent fuel pools and dry casks both provide adequate protection of the public health and safety and the environment," and that there is "no pressing safety or security reason to mandate earlier transfer of fuel from pool to cask." Despite the fact that these are located around the country on the sites of nuclear power plants, there has never been any significant nuclear waste safety issue. The industry has an exceptional record and oversees one of the strongest safety cultures of any industry.

b.  Confirmation of Global Warming

One year after the enactment of the California nuclear moratorium, the National Academy of Sciences in "Energy and Climate" (1977) explicitly identified the climate impact of fossil fuel emissions as the “primary limiting factor” on energy production. This historical record indicates that the risks associated with fossil fuels were scientifically documented at the time the moratorium was established. Modern data confirms this trend: the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and Copernicus Climate Change Service report that 2024 was the warmest year on record, with 2025 tying for second, marking the last 11 years (2015–2025) as the hottest 11-year period in the 176-year instrumental record.

c. Zero Deaths or Health Impacts

According to the NRC, over 40 years of utilized dry cask storage (beginning in 1986) has resulted in zero radioactive releases that have affected public health or the environment. This is further validated by the IAEA Status and Trends in Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Management (Rev. 2, 2025), which reports a near-perfect global safety record over seven decades of high-level waste management. Moreover, statistical analysis from Oxford University’s Our World in Data (2024) identifies nuclear as one of the safest energy sources, with a mortality rate of 0.03 deaths per TWh, comparable to solar (0.02) and significantly lower than natural gas (2.8) and coal (24.6).

d. Costs of Climate Change

According to NOAA/Climate Central (2025/2026), the U.S. sustained 23 billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in 2025, totaling $115 billion in damages. This includes the January 2025 Los Angeles Wildfires, which at $61.2 billion in direct losses stands as the costliest wildfire event in historical record. In addition, economic modeling by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, published in Nature (Revised 2025), projects that climate change will cause a 17% global income reduction and $32 trillion in annual damages by 2050. To quantify these externalities, the EPA: Report on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (Final 2023/2024) establishes the social cost of carbon at $190 per metric ton (assuming a 2% Ramsey discount rate), with projections reaching $230 per metric ton by 2030 (in 2020 dollars). These figures represent the "true cost" of fossil fuel waste and reflect damages to human health, infrastructure, and global agriculture that must be integrated into energy policy.

e.  Need to Stop Fossil Fuel Use

Advanced modeling of global emission trajectories indicates a diminishing window for climate stabilization. The Global Carbon Budget 2025 calculates that the remaining carbon budget to limit global warming to 1.5°C is approximately 170 billion tons of CO2. At current global emission rates, this budget will be exhausted by 2030, establishing a physical deadline beyond which any further unabated fossil fuel use guarantees a breach of international climate targets. Furthermore, the UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2025 identifies an "Infrastructure Lock-In," concluding that existing and planned fossil fuel infrastructure is already on track to exceed the total carbon budget for 1.5°C.

f. Why Nuclear is Needed

Technical analysis from the IAEA (Jan 2026) outlines five pillars for nuclear's role in the clean energy transition: (1) delivering large-scale, low-carbon power, (2) providing reliable baseload power for growing needs, (3) building momentum to increase financing, (4) contributing to the decarbonization of hard-to-abate sectors, and (5) advancing technology evolution and innovation. In addition, the IEA World Energy Outlook 2025 notes tripling global nuclear capacity by 2050 as a climate necessity in order to achieve Net Zero, which would increase capacity from 413 GW in 2020 to 1,240 GW by mid-century. As of March 10, 2026, a total of 38 nations—including China, Brazil, Italy, and Belgium—have formally joined the "Tripling Pledge" to meet this 1,200 GW target. Economically, in a scenario where the nuclear construction fails to accelerate and extend timelines over the next decades, modeled as a decline to 3% of total generation in 2050, the global energy transition would be $500 billion more expensive and raise consumer electricity bills by $20 billion annually, per the IEA.

g. States that have repealed their Bans

Multiple states have recently enacted legislation to remove or modify historical bans on nuclear construction to meet clean energy and grid reliability goals. In January 2026, Illinois fully repealed its decades-long moratorium by passing the Clean and Reliable Grid Affordability Act (CRGA), authorizing the construction of large-scale reactors (over 300 MW) to support its 100% carbon-free mandate. This followed a partial repeal in 2023 (HB 2473), which allowed for SMRs. Similarly, West Virginia (2022) repealed its 26-year-old ban to modernize its energy portfolio and attract industrial development. Montana (2021) removed its de facto ban by repealing the statewide citizen-vote requirement for new plants, shifting oversight to the legislature. Kentucky (2017) lifted its moratorium by requiring only a waste storage plan rather than permanent disposal, specifically to facilitate SMR deployment. For more information about States' actions on nuclear power, see: US States' Nuclear Progress,

h. Sufficient Existing Solutions to Nuclear Waste

Since the first commercial dry cask storage began at the Surry Power Station in 1986, the U.S. NRC has documented a perfect safety record with zero radioactive releases affecting public health or the environment. This record was reaffirmed in January 2026 by the Federal Register (91 FR 3635), which issued new approvals for high-capacity storage canisters after concluding they provide "adequate protection of public health" and maintain "confinement, shielding, and criticality control." Globally, the IAEA (Rev. 2, 2025) reports that 95% of the 390,000 tonnes of spent fuel generated since 1954 is already in managed storage or permanent disposal without incident. These solutions have reached the final implementation phase in several jurisdictions, including the world’s first operational deep geological repository in Finland (Onkalo), which entered final trial runs in March 2026, as well as advanced site selection and evaluation programs in Canada and the UK.

i. Waste Storage and Reprocessing Innovations

Deep Isolation, a Berkeley, CA-founded venture, has developed a long-term waste storage method using mature deep horizontal drilling technology to store nuclear waste in bullet-shaped canisters and lowering them a mile underground into cement-encased boreholes and sealing the opening. Several types of Gen IV fission designs can also consume nuclear waste as their fuel source. Thus, groups like Oklo, Curio and SHINE Technologies are developing nuclear waste reprocessing facilities. Oklo, a Sunnyvale, CA-based company, just announced a deal with the Idaho National Lab to co-develop their fuel reprocessing technology. Other ventures see the opportunity to use valuable components out of this waste stream to create new products. Zeno Power uses Strontium-90 and Americium-241 to make space powerpacks or undersea sensors. SHINE extracts Ytterbium to produce Lutecium-90, a cancer-fighting pharmaceutical.

j. Nuclear’s Value Proven

Technical analysis from the IAEA (Jan 2026) outlines five pillars for nuclear's role in the clean energy transition: (1) delivering large-scale, low-carbon power, (2) providing reliable baseload power for growing needs, (3) building momentum to increase financing, (4) contributing to the decarbonization of hard-to-abate sectors, and (5) advancing technology evolution and innovation.

k. Report on New Nuclear Designs

Modern advancements have moved beyond theoretical models into physical deployment across both fission and fusion sectors. As of 2026, over 80 Small Modular Reactor designs are in development globally across water, gas, liquid metal, and molten salt cooling platforms, utilizing "Generation IV" passive safety systems that require no operator intervention (WNA, 2026). In the U.S., the DOE Reactor Pilot Program is currently working to support the accelerated testing of 11 advanced reactor projects with a federal mandate to achieve reactor criticality by July 4, 2026. Fusion energy ventures are also making progress across designs such as lasers, tokamaks, stellarators, magnetized target fusion, and alternative confinement concepts.

l. Scalability and Flexibility of Advanced Nuclear

Advanced reactors are being developed in a variety of sizes—ranging from 1 MW microreactors to large 1,000 MW units—to provide versatile energy solutions (WNA: Advanced Reactors, 2025). Small advanced reactors achieve a unique "plug-and-play" scalability through factory-based construction that reduces project timelines to under 3 years (Bank of America Institute, 2026) and sometimes significantly shorter. These units are specifically engineered for incremental deployment, allowing capacity to be scaled unit-by-unit to match localized demand while significantly reducing upfront financial risk (WNA: SMRs, 2025). On the larger end of the spectrum, many advanced reactors leverage automated control systems, high-temperature coolants and heat/power storage to provide extreme operational flexibility through "load-following”, which allows them to ramp power output capacity to stabilize the grid and/or divert energy to non-electric sectors, such as high-temperature industrial heat for desalination and hydrogen production (WNA: Advanced Reactors, 2025).

m.  SB 100’s Acceptance of Nuclear by 2030

Under Section 454.53(a) of the California Public Utilities Code, the state’s 2045 goal is defined as 100% retail sales from "eligible renewable resources and zero-carbon resources." This legal framework technically permits the inclusion of nuclear energy as a primary tool for grid reliability once the 60% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) mandate concludes in 2030, which would allow California to integrate new nuclear generation into its procurement mix immediately thereafter.

n.  Energy demand is escalating

Energy demand has begun growing for the first time in decades thanks largely to growing AI usage and demand for ever larger datacenters to power that growing AI usage.

o. Examples of what states are doing to attract, incentivize nuclear

President Biden helped organize and committed the U.S. to tripling nuclear power by 2050 and then his team helped achieve global support for the “Tripling Pledge” that was launched at COP 28 in Abu Dhabi and ultimately signed by 30 countries. Now that the Trump Administration is accelerating development of advanced reactors, more and more states are vying to attract nuclear. See this post to learn more about how: States are vying to host nuclear development.

p. California should should submit a response to the DOE's RFI

President Trump issued a series of Executive Orders in May 2025, titled Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base, Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of Energy and Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with the goal of "re-establishing the United States as the global leader in nuclear energy." As part of these orders, Trump set the U.S. target to aim to quadruple US nuclear capacity. On January 28, 2026, the DOE issued a Request for Information on Establishment of Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses, with responses due on April 1, 2026.  This RFI seeks input from states interested in hosting potential Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses to anchor integrated, full‑cycle nuclear ecosystems that could co-locate and support the entire nuclear value chain while exploring durable pathways for managing used nuclear materials in a safe, secure, and fiscally responsible manner.  According to the DOE's summary explanation, States are invited to indicate their interest and provide constructive feedback on the structure of the Innovation Campuses by submitting a clear articulation of their strategic priorities—such as workforce development, infrastructure investment, economic diversification, or technology leadership—along with their proposed appropriate scope of the Innovation Campuses and the specific funding structures, risk‑sharing approaches, and other support, incentives, or federal partnerships they would require to successfully host and sustain an Innovation Campus. We believe it is essential that the California CEC submit a response.

q. Reports of tech hyperscalers and others seeking to lock up power from nuclear power

Commencing in 2024, tech companies began to lock up access to clean, reliable nuclear power through a range of contracts with existing built traditional nuclear power and with advanced nuclear developers working to commercialize new designs. Amazon signed a deal with Talen for power from the Susquehanna Nuclear Power Plant to power the Cumulus Data Center. Microsoft signed an exclusive deal with Constellation to take 20 years of power from the restart of the Three Mile Island Unit 1 reactor, Google placed an order for $.5 billion in power from Kairos Power and Amazon invested in X-energy and placed orders for reactors as well. This was just the beginning, as more companies, including Nucor, Meta and Crusoe, and defense groups among others have since placed orders for nuclear power.

r. List of advanced nuclear ventures based in California

California is the global epicenter of tech innovation, including nuclear energy, and hosts a dense ecosystem across the advanced nuclear sector. While this list is merely a subset of the firms currently headquartered in the state, the advanced fission sector includes Oklo (Santa Clara), Kairos Power (Alameda), Radiant Nuclear (El Segundo), Antares Nuclear (Redondo Beach), Deep Fission (Berkeley), Hadron Energy (Redwood City), and Valar Atomics (El Segundo). The fusion energy sector includes companies such as TAE Technologies (Foothill Ranch), Xcimer Energy (Redwood City), Focused Energy (Redwood City), Fuse Energy Technologies (Palo Alto), Pacific Fusion (Fremont), and Marathon Fusion. The sectors are further supported by firms like Deep Isolation (Berkeley) for waste management, Mirion Technologies (San Francisco) for monitoring, and Atomic Canyon (San Luis Obispo) for industry-specific AI. Many sector ventures, not headquartered in the state, still have operations in California. 

s.  Benefits of Retaining California's Nuclear Innovation Activity

Nuclear investment acts as a high-velocity economic engine with gross domestic production (GDP) multipliers significantly higher than those of other energy sectors. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), nuclear investment multipliers are three times higher than renewables and six times higher than fossil fuels in the short term (WEF, 2025). A 2025 EY/Duke Energy study further demonstrates that a decade of modernization investment (into nuclear) supports nearly 168,000 jobs annually and generates a $211 billion contribution to GDP (EY/Duke Energy, 2025).

t.  The things California should do to attract and retain nuclear innovation activity.

For California to best retain existing nuclear and attract new nuclear innovators, the state needs to remove its permitting moratorium and begin to provide pro-active support for innovators working within the nuclear sector. The state should reform the permitting process for siting new nuclear power plants and evaluate what its needs would be to host a nuclear innovation campus and complete a response to the RFI issued by the DOE about what it would need to host such a campus. It should also consider the types of support and services being offered by other states competing for this economic activity—especially for those ventures seeking to modernize the full nuclear fuel cycle—and consider providing incentives to ventures seeking to engage in that activity in California. At the very least, California needs to aggressively defend and protect its existing nuclear power and fully support the full license extension being sought by Diablo Canyon and ensure that the plant obtains all requisite state permits for its continued operations. This is the best way for California to increase its chances of meeting its SB 100 zero emission goals on time, sharing in federal funding that is already available and/or which will be made available by the Trump Administration, and growing its economy with quality jobs and abundant clean energy in the coming decades.

New York Times: Opinion, Give Nuclear Power Another Chance, Nov. 26, 2025, a Guest Essay by Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow.

San Francisco Chronicle, California needs to end its outdate nuclear power plant moratorium, Feb. 18, 2026, an OpEd by Jeff Donovan and Cristina Talacko.

Washington Examiner, Nuclear energy revival fueled by growing embrace by the Left, February 19, 2026, by Callie Patteson.

The U.S. and some thirty other nations have been generating nuclear power now for nearly 70 years. In all of this time, what we call "nuclear waste" has been generated and it has been handled in a number of different ways by different countries, always safely. However, as countries contemplate increasing their use of nuclear energy, the options for handling this waste stream most economically begin to shift towards investing into recycling it, which is referred to in the industry as "closing the fuel cycle."

It turns out that nuclear's spent fuel has enormous potential value and, while it is expensive to handle and reprocess, it contains many valuable isotopes that have tremendous industrial and medical benefits, should we choose to stop treating it as "waste" and unlock those assets. Countries with relatively more nuclear power, such as France, Russia and Japan, already have closed fuel cycles. If the U.S. is going to quadruple its use of nuclear, it makes abundant economic sense for us to invest into closing our fule cycle. Under the current administration, we are heading in that direction.

What follows are approaches that we take to manage the existing nuclear waste and advancements and capabilities that we are in the process of building for closing the fuel cycle.

1. Dry Cask Storage - very established and successfully used at nuclear power plants across the country. No safety issues experienced.
2. Mined Repositories - we have created several of these for defense-related nuclear waste, such as the WIPP.  The NRC was just found by the Supreme Court to have the ability to approve additional waste facilities, so we may see new commercial waste storage facilities being built.
3. Central, Federally-Managed Large Mined Repositories - the U.S. has had issues moving ahead on this but other countries, including Finland and Canadian have made progress. Finland has already built its facility. Canada has completed its site selection process. Which is to say that the technology to create such a facility is establishe. Approving one is now simply a political matter.
4. Closing the fuel cycle - highly feasible but a matter of industrial policy. Countries such as in France, Japan and Russia have closed fuel cycles. The U.S. DOE's Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Office of Environmental Management and the Office of Science in waste reprocessing has already teamed up to develop technologies for recovering valuable materials out of nuclear waste. (See: NNSA and DOE partners market major achievement in nuclear materials recovery, Dec. 19, 2025.)
5. Advanced Reactors that can Use former waste as fuel - a few of the Gen IV reactor designs will utilize fast neutrons that can burn nuclear waste (spent fuel) as fuel and get much more energy out of it. Such reactors will enable far great fuel utilization than what was historically available from light water reactors, which burned up only 5% of the uranium in their fuel rods on average.
6. Advanced fuel reprocessing - establishing nuclear waste separate and reprocessing capabilities in the U.S. will enable us to collect up a range of highly valuable isotopes out of the spent fuel material and utilize them for industrial and medical purposes. Work is already being done to support efforts by a number of ventures to establish fuel reprocessing facilities in the U.S. These include: Oklo, Curio, Exodys and SHINE Technologies.
7. Transmutation of waste - There are a number of ways to reduce the amount of waste being stockpiled but there are also a number of ways to convert radioactive materials into safer materials and/or reduce the amount of time that certain waste generates radiation. This involves transmutation and it uses neutrons to change the chemical composition of the material to reduce its radiation or renature it entirely. SHINE Technologies, which has created a form of low-grade fusion, expects to be able to use their neutron flux capability to reprocess nuclear waste. and isolate select isotopes so that the total time the material remains radiaoactive reduces down from 100,000 years to just a hundred or so.
8. Advanced Waste Storage capabilities - There are various ideas available for storing nuclear waste not at ground level in dry casks or in mined repositories in dry casks but deep underground, where it isn't in potential contact with anyone.  A company called Deep Isolation has proposed using mature drilling techniques from the oil and gas industry to send sealed containers holding fuel bundles through drilled shafts to a resting place as much as a mile underground. Deep Isolation has recently started a full-scale demonstration of its proposed solution. When combined with waste reprocessing that removes the valuable stuff and only leaves a fractional amount of material for which no uses have been developed, this becomes a very advantageous and economic solution.

   (More technologies will be added as we hear of them.)

On February 20, 2026, Assembly Bill Number 2647 was introduced by Member Calderon, co-authored by Members Harabedian and Lee, with Senator Jones as a further co-author, that aims to amend Sections 25524.1 and 25524.2 of the Public Resources Code, which is the law which introduced the nuclear moratorium.  The Legislative Counsel's digest describes this bill as follows: