HE’S JOINING TRUMP ADMIN – NOBODY EXPECTED THIS
Missouri Signs Federal Permitting Deal to Advance Nuclear Energy - But the Agreement Does Not Approve a New Reactor
Missouri wants to move faster on nuclear energy at a moment when the United States is again confronting a problem it largely avoided for years: rapidly rising electricity demand.
Gov. Mike Kehoe's new partnership with the federal Permitting Council is a meaningful step in that direction.
It is not, however, an approval to build another nuclear reactor in Missouri.
Kehoe signed the memorandum of understanding on July 1 at Ameren Missouri's Callaway Energy Center.
The agreement was signed with Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council Executive Director Emily Domenech and makes Missouri the fifth state at the time to enter this kind of statewide permitting partnership under the current administration.
Alaska, Idaho, Tennessee and Utah had already signed similar agreements.
The purpose is straightforward.
Missouri and federal agencies will try to coordinate reviews earlier, align state and federal permitting schedules, reduce duplicative work and place more of the process on the federal FAST-41 permitting dashboard.
The state will also work with the Permitting Council to identify priority infrastructure projects that could benefit from that coordination.
That can matter enormously for a nuclear project.
Large energy facilities can require reviews and approvals from multiple agencies operating under different statutes, deadlines and information requirements.
A project can satisfy one agency and still wait months or years for another review to catch up.
FAST-41 is designed to make those processes more predictable and transparent.
But streamlining is not the same as eliminating the rules.
The memorandum does not waive Nuclear Regulatory Commission safety requirements, federal environmental laws or other permits a project may need.
It does not authorize construction at Callaway.
It does not name a specific second reactor that Missouri has committed to build.
The strongest case for the agreement is therefore narrower than saying Missouri has already launched a nuclear expansion.
The state is trying to make sure that if a viable nuclear, critical-minerals or other major infrastructure project is proposed, government review does not become an unnecessary sequence of disconnected bureaucratic delays.
Kehoe framed the agreement in exactly those terms.
"The State of Missouri is proud to work with the Trump administration to cut red tape and speed up the permitting process for critical infrastructure development projects," he said.
He argued that a more transparent and efficient process could support energy production, investment and economic development.
At the Callaway event, Kehoe put the point more bluntly.
Missouri, he said, does not want to work at "bureaucratic speed" when major projects can move at "business speed."
The location of the signing was deliberate.
Callaway is Missouri's existing commercial nuclear power plant and the clearest symbol of what the state already knows how to operate.
Its current reactor has been producing power since the 1980s, and its renewed federal operating license extends to 2044.
Missouri is now studying whether nuclear power should play a larger role after that.
Kehoe formally created the Missouri Advanced Nuclear Energy Task Force by executive order on Jan. 13, 2026.
The administration announced its 23 appointed members on May 1.
So the task force was not established in May, as some accounts have suggested; May was when its membership was announced.
The task force is charged with evaluating how advanced nuclear technologies could strengthen reliability, affordability and economic development in the state.
Its work feeds into Missouri's broader energy planning and is expected to examine barriers to deployment, infrastructure needs, workforce issues and the state's role in attracting nuclear investment.
That effort comes at a very different moment for the electric grid than the country faced a decade ago.
U.S. electricity demand has begun rising again after a long period of relatively little growth.
The Energy Information Administration says large computing facilities, including data centers, are a major driver of that increase.
Artificial intelligence is part of the pressure.
Modern data centers can require enormous amounts of continuous electricity, and future facilities may demand hundreds of megawatts or even multiple gigawatts.
That has revived interest in power sources that can operate around the clock rather than only when weather conditions cooperate.
Nuclear energy fits that requirement particularly well.
U.S. nuclear reactors typically operate at very high capacity factors and can generate large quantities of electricity continuously for long periods between refueling outages.
That is one reason technology companies and utilities have begun exploring new reactors, reactor restarts and agreements tied to existing nuclear plants.
The environmental case for nuclear is also strong, although it should be described precisely.
Nuclear reactors do not produce carbon dioxide or conventional air pollution while generating electricity.
They are therefore a major source of low-carbon power.
They are not literally zero-emission over their entire life cycle.
Uranium mining and processing, fuel production, plant construction and decommissioning all require energy and materials that create some emissions.
Nuclear facilities also produce radioactive waste that must be stored and managed.
Those qualifications do not erase nuclear power's climate advantage over fossil-fuel generation.
They simply make the claim more accurate than saying nuclear puts 'zero emissions into the atmosphere' under every definition.
Safety also deserves a more careful description than either side of the nuclear debate often gives it.
The U.S. commercial nuclear industry has operated for decades with relatively few major accidents and has become one of the country's most reliable sources of electricity.
The 1979 Three Mile Island accident remains the most serious accident in U.S. commercial nuclear power history.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says the small radioactive releases from that event produced no detectable health effects on workers or the surrounding public.
Three Mile Island nevertheless transformed the industry.
It intensified public distrust and led to stronger emergency planning, training, inspections and regulatory oversight.
Those changes improved safety, but they also became part of a regulatory environment in which new plants were increasingly expensive and difficult to finance.
That history is more complicated than saying the far left simply shut nuclear construction down through lawfare.
Orders for new U.S. reactors had already begun falling sharply after 1974, years before the Three Mile Island accident.
No new reactor orders were placed after 1978 under the old construction model.
The reasons were economic as well as political and regulatory.
Electricity-demand forecasts changed.
Interest rates and construction costs rose.
Projects encountered delays and cost overruns.
Utilities faced new safety requirements and growing public opposition.
Cheap natural gas later became a formidable competitor.
Environmental litigation and anti-nuclear activism did affect some projects and policy debates.
But treating them as the single reason America stopped ordering reactors leaves out much of the industry's actual history.
The long construction drought was still real.
Most of the existing U.S. nuclear fleet was built between roughly 1970 and 1990.
For decades, the country brought almost no entirely new large reactor projects from start to finish.
That drought finally ended in Georgia.
Vogtle Unit 3 entered commercial operation in July 2023 and Unit 4 followed in April 2024.
The two AP1000 units were the first newly constructed U.S. nuclear reactors to enter commercial service in roughly three decades.
Their completion demonstrated both the promise and the obstacle facing a nuclear revival.
Vogtle now provides a very large source of around-the-clock low-carbon electricity.
But the project also suffered years of delay and major cost overruns.
That experience is one reason permitting reform attracts bipartisan and industry interest.
A new nuclear program will not succeed if every project becomes a one-off megaproject that takes well over a decade to navigate design changes, construction problems and regulatory uncertainty.
At the same time, permitting reform cannot solve every problem.
A faster government review does not automatically make a reactor economical.
Developers still need financing, a credible design, a utility or customer willing to buy the power, a trained workforce, a supply chain and NRC approval.
Advanced reactor developers are trying to change that equation.
Small modular reactors and other new designs are intended to use more standardized components, smaller individual units and in some cases passive safety systems.
The hope is that repeatable designs can avoid some of the cost and schedule problems that plagued large bespoke projects.
Whether that promise will translate into commercially competitive plants remains one of the central questions facing the industry.
Missouri has reasons to compete for the answer.
The state already has nuclear operating experience at Callaway, a nuclear-trained workforce and industrial infrastructure.
A successful new nuclear project could provide long-lived generating capacity while supporting manufacturing and construction jobs.
The state is also looking beyond reactors alone.
Kehoe administration officials have tied the permitting partnership to critical minerals and other infrastructure needed for energy and advanced manufacturing.
Department of Natural Resources Director Kurt Schaefer said Missouri and Washington now have an unusual alignment of officials interested in accelerating both nuclear development and critical-minerals projects.
His frustration is with sequencing.
State agencies can prepare a project only to have progress stall when a separate federal process begins or proceeds on a different schedule.
The MOU is supposed to reduce that problem by making the two levels of government work from a coordinated timeline.
That is meaningful even if no reactor is built tomorrow.
The permitting system is often discussed as if there are only two choices: endless delay or no regulation.
FAST-41 is built around a third idea.
Keep the substantive reviews, but give agencies a coordinated schedule, identify responsibilities early and make delays visible.
If Missouri can do that without weakening safety and environmental standards, it would address a real obstacle to infrastructure development.
If 'streamlining' simply becomes a political word for rushing complex reviews, the state could create different problems later through litigation, local opposition or poorly prepared projects.
The distinction will matter most once Missouri identifies a real nuclear project.
The July agreement does not tell taxpayers what design would be built, where it would be located, who would own it, what it would cost or when it would begin operating.
Those questions remain open.
So does the future of Callaway itself.
Its current license runs to 2044, giving Missouri time to decide whether the plant should seek another extension, whether new generation should be added at or near the existing site, or whether advanced reactors belong elsewhere in the state.
The important change is that Missouri is now trying to make those decisions inside a federal environment that is actively encouraging nuclear development rather than treating new reactors as a distant possibility.
That shift reflects a broader national reconsideration.
The United States built its original nuclear fleet when electricity demand was growing rapidly and policymakers wanted large amounts of reliable domestic power.
Today's drivers are different - AI, data centers, manufacturing, grid reliability and carbon reduction - but the underlying problem is familiar.
The country needs more dependable electricity.
Nuclear power is one possible part of that answer.
It is not automatically cheap, fast or politically simple.
But dismissing it because of the debates of the 1970s and 1980s would ignore both the performance of the existing fleet and the scale of the new electricity challenge.
Missouri's agreement settles one small but important issue.
State and federal officials have agreed to coordinate permitting more closely and make priority infrastructure reviews more predictable.
It does not settle the much larger issue.
Missouri still has to find a project that is technically credible, financially viable and capable of winning all of the approvals required to operate safely.
May you like
The state's nuclear revival has moved from rhetoric toward planning.
It has not yet moved from planning to a new reactor.
