# What Are Utah, Idaho, and Tennessee Offering the DOE's NLIC Program?

The DOE's Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus program attracted expressions of interest from 26 states by April 2026 — and then narrowed to five. At the end of July, the Department of Energy signed memorandums of understanding with Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah to explore state-federal partnerships for facilities covering the full nuclear fuel cycle, from [uranium enrichment](https://smrintel.com/glossary/enrichment) at the front end through waste disposition at the back. Those MOUs carry no firm commitments from either side. What they do create is a structured process for assessing which state — if any — can actually build something real.

This article examines what Utah, Idaho, and Tennessee bring to the table. Oklahoma and Louisiana were covered in Part 1 of this series. The three states profiled here represent a spectrum: Utah has no commercial reactor history but significant front-end and back-end fuel cycle infrastructure; Idaho hosts the nation's most consequential nuclear research campus; and Tennessee's nuclear sector, per the source, is too large to summarize concisely in a single article.

The analysis below draws on state RFI responses and publicly available program information reviewed by ANS Nuclear News.

---

## Utah's Pitch: 300 Square Miles in Tooele County, Zero Commercial Reactor History

Utah is one of 14 U.S. states that has never hosted a commercial nuclear power plant. That's a liability in some respects — no operational reactor workforce, no utility-scale nuclear operations culture — but the state is making an aggressive case based on land, infrastructure, and existing fuel cycle assets.

Utah's Office of Energy Development submitted both a 151-page full response to the DOE's RFI and a 32-slide summary presentation. The proposal centers on a single site: a 300-square-mile corridor of state-controlled land in Tooele County, which the OED highlights for its road, air, rail, internet, and electricity connectivity. The proposed scope for this campus is broad — enrichment, fuel fabrication, recycling and reprocessing, and long-term waste disposition — with additional provisions for advanced reactor deployment, advanced manufacturing, and data center co-location.

That ambition needs to be weighed against Utah's track record on nuclear project follow-through, which is not encouraging.

The state's two most prominent nuclear projects both failed. The Blue Castle project, which aimed to site two [Westinghouse](https://smrintel.com/companies/westinghouse) AP1000s at Green River, lost momentum by the mid-2010s — though Hi Tech Solutions began revival efforts earlier this summer, this time proposing [Holtec International](https://smrintel.com/companies/holtec-international) SMR-300 units. The Carbon Free Power Project, a collaboration between Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems and [NuScale Power](https://smrintel.com/companies/nuscale-power), was canceled in 2023 after years of regulatory progress and substantial financial investment. The project originally proposed 12 50-MWe NuScale reactors at Idaho National Laboratory in 2015, then restructured to six 77-MWe reactors in 2021 before the economics collapsed.

**What Utah does have that matters:** [Energy Fuels Inc](https://smrintel.com/companies/energy-fuels) operates the White Mesa mill in southern Utah — the only currently operating conventional uranium mill in the United States. EnergySolutions operates the Clive site for low-level radioactive waste management. These are not token assets. For a program focused on the full nuclear fuel cycle, having an operating uranium mill and a licensed low-level waste facility within state borders is a meaningful differentiator.

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox's Operation Gigawatt initiative, unveiled in 2024 with a goal of doubling state power production by 2034, has generated significant private interest. The source lists organizations currently exploring Utah projects including Valar Atomics, [Holtec International](https://smrintel.com/companies/holtec-international), Nuclea Energy, EnergySolutions, Anfield Energy, Utah State University, Elemental Nuclear, Nusano, the Military Installation Development Authority, and [TerraPower](https://smrintel.com/companies/terrapower), among others.

**Skeptical read:** A long list of exploratory-stage organizations is not a pipeline of committed projects. Utah's Tooele County corridor is state-controlled land — not a permitted, NRC-licensed facility. The gap between a 300-square-mile land proposal and an operating fuel cycle campus is enormous in terms of time, capital, and regulatory complexity. The state's MOU with DOE buys it a seat at the table. Translating that into a funded, licensed facility will require a level of project execution Utah has not yet demonstrated in nuclear.

---

## Idaho: INL as the Central Argument

Idaho ranked third in Nuclear News's recent ranking of top 10 nuclear states. The case for Idaho rests almost entirely on Idaho National Laboratory — and it's a compelling one.

INL is where the first usable electricity from nuclear power was generated. More than 50 reactors have come online at the site across its history. Current INL programs and facilities directly relevant to the NLIC mission include the National Reactor Innovation Center, the Demonstration of Microreactor Experiments (DOME) test bed, and the Hot Fuel Examination Facility. INL has also been central to the Reactor Pilot Program and its Launch Pad program — described by the ANS source as "one of the most-watched nuclear stories over the past year."

Idaho Gov. Brad Little's 113-page RFI response leads with INL's institutional depth. The source notes that Idaho's and Tennessee's full nuclear histories would span hundreds of pages, with roots reaching back to World War II — a signal that both states are operating from an infrastructure base that Utah and Oklahoma simply cannot match.

**Why INL matters specifically for NLIC:** A Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus by definition requires expertise and infrastructure spanning the full fuel cycle. INL already operates across much of that spectrum: fuel qualification, reactor testing, post-irradiation examination, and workforce development. Locating an NLIC campus in Idaho means building on existing federal infrastructure, existing NRC oversight relationships, and an existing technical workforce — rather than constructing all of that from scratch.

The [DOME Test Facility](https://smrintel.com/glossary/dome) at INL, designed to support microreactor testing in real operational conditions, is the kind of asset that makes Idaho's NLIC argument qualitatively different from states proposing greenfield sites.

**Complicating factor:** The DOE already has a massive existing presence in Idaho through INL. Whether that makes Idaho a natural NLIC host or whether DOE views an NLIC campus as something intended to develop nuclear infrastructure in states that lack it is a policy question the MOUs don't resolve. If DOE's intent is geographic diversification of the fuel cycle, Idaho's existing strength could work against it.

---

## Tennessee: Too Much to Summarize Here

The ANS source explicitly notes that a comprehensive treatment of Tennessee's nuclear sector exceeds the scope of Part 2 of this article — a telling indicator of the state's depth. Tennessee's nuclear history stretches back to World War II, and the Tennessee Valley Authority operates multiple commercial reactors. Full analysis of Tennessee's NLIC case will require its own treatment.

---

## What the MOU Process Actually Decides

It's worth being precise about what the DOE's MOU signings do and do not mean. Per the ANS source, these agreements are not firm commitments from either the federal or state governments. They are structured explorations. The program remains in an early phase, and "time will tell which — if any — of the five states develop projects through the program," as ANS puts it.

For the nuclear fuel cycle industry, the NLIC program's significance lies in what it signals: DOE intent to actively structure domestic fuel cycle infrastructure, not simply fund individual projects. A campus framework — integrating enrichment, fabrication, reprocessing, and waste management on a coordinated site — would represent a meaningful departure from the current fragmented approach to domestic fuel cycle development.

Whether that vision survives budget cycles, interagency negotiations, and state-level politics is the harder question.

---

## Key Takeaways

- DOE signed MOUs with five states for its NLIC program at the end of July 2026; the agreements carry no firm commitments from either side.
- Utah proposes a 300-square-mile Tooele County corridor for an integrated fuel cycle campus including enrichment, fabrication, reprocessing, and waste disposition, supported by [Energy Fuels Inc](https://smrintel.com/companies/energy-fuels)'s White Mesa mill — the only operating conventional uranium mill in the U.S.
- Utah has no commercial reactor operating history; its two major nuclear projects (Blue Castle and NuScale's Carbon Free Power Project) were both canceled.
- Idaho's case centers on Idaho National Laboratory, where more than 50 reactors have been built and operated, and which hosts facilities including the National Reactor Innovation Center and the DOME test bed.
- Idaho Gov. Brad Little's 113-page RFI response leads with INL's institutional depth; Idaho ranked third in Nuclear News's recent top 10 nuclear states ranking.
- Tennessee's nuclear sector is described by ANS as too extensive to cover in a single article — a signal of the state's depth relative to other finalists.
- The NLIC program, if it advances to a built campus, would represent a structurally new approach to domestic fuel cycle integration.

---

## Frequently Asked Questions

**What is the DOE's Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus (NLIC) program?**
Announced in January 2026, the NLIC program invites states to host a facility supporting nuclear fuel cycle work from the front end (mining, enrichment, fabrication) through the back end (reprocessing, waste management). By April 2026, 26 states had expressed interest. The DOE signed MOUs with five — Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah — at the end of July 2026 to explore state-federal partnerships further. These MOUs are not firm commitments.

**Why is Utah considered a contender despite having no commercial reactor history?**
Utah's candidacy rests on its existing fuel cycle infrastructure — specifically Energy Fuels' White Mesa mill, the only operating conventional uranium mill in the U.S., and EnergySolutions' Clive low-level waste site — combined with the Tooele County land corridor and Gov. Cox's Operation Gigawatt initiative. However, the state's record of canceled nuclear projects (Blue Castle, NuScale's Carbon Free Power Project) raises execution risk questions.

**What makes Idaho National Laboratory relevant to the NLIC selection?**
INL is where nuclear power first generated usable electricity. It hosts more than 50 historically constructed reactors, the National Reactor Innovation Center, the DOME microreactor test bed, the Hot Fuel Examination Facility, and the Reactor Pilot Program. This existing infrastructure covers much of what an NLIC campus would need to build from scratch elsewhere.

**What was the NuScale Carbon Free Power Project in Utah?**
A collaboration between Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems and NuScale Power, originally planned in 2015 to deploy 12 50-MWe reactors at Idaho National Laboratory. Restructured in 2021 to six 77-MWe reactors, the project was ultimately canceled in 2023 despite significant regulatory progress and financial investment.

**Do the DOE's NLIC MOUs guarantee any of the five states will get a campus?**
No. The MOUs are structured explorations, not funding commitments or site selections. Per the ANS source, they allow DOE and state governments to more closely examine partnership possibilities. Whether any of the five states progresses to an actual NLIC facility remains unresolved.