Page:Alabama v. North Carolina, 560 U.S. (2010) slip opinion.pdf/8

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
4
ALABAMA v. NORTH CAROLINA

Opinion of the Court

responded that the State was not prepared to assume a greater portion of the project’s costs, and would not be able to proceed without continued Commission funding. Shortly thereafter the Commission adopted a resolution declaring that it was willing and able to provide additional funds, but calling on North Carolina to work with it to develop long-term funding sources for the facility. From FY 1996 through FY 1998, the Commission provided North Carolina approximately an additional $12.27 mil­lion in financial assistance. North Carolina, for its part, continued to provide its own funds toward licensing activi­ties—another $6 million during the same time period.

In August 1997, the Commission notified North Caro­lina that absent a plan for funding the remaining steps of the licensing phase, it would not disburse additional funds to North Carolina after November 30, 1997. North Caro­lina responded that it would not be able to continue with­out additional guarantees of external funding. On Decem­ber 1, 1997, the parties having failed to agree upon a long­-term financing plan, the Commission ceased financial assistance to North Carolina. By then it had provided almost $80 million.

On December 19, 1997, North Carolina informed the Commission it would commence an orderly shutdown of its licensing project, and since that date has taken no further steps toward obtaining a license for the facility. But it did continue to fund the Authority for several more years, in the hope that the project would resume upon the restora­tion of external financial assistance. North Carolina maintained the proposed facility site, preserved the work it had completed to date, and retained the Authority’s books and records. It also participated in discussions with the Commission, generators of low-level radioactive waste, and other stakeholders regarding options to resolve the financing shortfall. From FY 1988 through FY 2000, North Carolina had expended almost $34 million toward