WASHINGTON—During a recent hearing, the Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs focused on advancing America’s energy future in the wake of the new atomic age, specifically through the development of small and micro modular nuclear reactors (SMRs and MMRs).
Witnesses emphasized that these technologies could redefine electricity generation in the United States by offering safe, affordable, and accessible nuclear energy.
However, they also pointed out that government overregulation continues to impede the progress of nuclear energy development in the country.
Alex Epstein, President and Founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, opened the discussion by highlighting the immense harm caused by current regulatory practices, which have stunted nuclear energy’s potential for decades.
Epstein noted, “Whenever we talk about abundant nuclear energy, including SMRs, we need to recognize that the first step is for government to stop doing the immense harm it’s actively doing.”
According to Epstein, nuclear power, recognized as safe as early as the 1970s, was able to quickly rise to 20 percent of American electrical power before facing crushing regulatory burdens that rendered it expensive or impractical to build.
Joshua Smith, Energy Policy Lead at the Abundance Institute, reinforced Epstein’s points in his testimony, asserting that the struggles facing American nuclear energy today are not due to technological shortcomings but rather stem from outdated regulations.
Smith explained that the regulatory frameworks employed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) often impose costs without significant safety benefits.
He specifically mentioned the As Low As Reasonably Achievable and Linear No-Threshold standards as examples of outdated practices that complicate the industry further.
For instance, he referenced the Three Mile Island incident, emphasizing that the radiation released resulted in no recorded deaths and asserted that modern reactor designs render disasters like Chernobyl impossible.
In terms of safety metrics, Smith argued that nuclear energy is about 800 times safer than coal and 100 times safer than gas generation when deaths per terawatt-hour of electricity production are compared.
Modernizing the approaches to electrical grid licensing, permitting, and the nuclear industry in general is necessary if the United States is to maintain its leadership in energy efficiency.
According to Smith, nuclear entrepreneurs are unable to thrive in a system that obstructs their progress before they even begin construction.
“Nuclear entrepreneurs can’t succeed in a system that blocks entry before shovels hit the dirt,” he said, advocating for a streamlined permitting process alongside reforms to nuclear regulations and grid interconnection.
Epstein suggested that the NRC should create nuclear innovation zones on federal land, which would allow private developers to conduct safety tests and iterate designs more rapidly without unnecessary delays.
He urged the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense to formally designate these zones and allow data collected on-site to fulfill existing regulatory safety requirements, dramatically expediting development processes.
Subcommittee Chairman Burlison (R-Mo.) pressed the witnesses on the barriers that prevent companies from advancing nuclear energy in the U.S., noting that a domestic company expressed concerns about needing to develop a fully functioning MMR abroad before being able to do so here.
The Chairman asked Smith, “What’s holding back companies like that from doing this in the United States?”
Smith reiterated that too many barriers exist between innovators and their ability to initiate construction, emphasizing the need for more real-life testing alongside ongoing modeling.
Burlison also sought Smith’s views about state versus federal regulation, asking why states might be more adept at regulating nuclear energy.
Smith articulated that the modern designs of nuclear reactors do not require many traditional safety features mandated by the NRC, which can hinder innovation and progress.
“The NRC has a hammer; they see everything as a nail, and we have a problem where new companies come in, they don’t need a containment chamber for their design,” he stated.
He pointed to initiatives in states like Texas and Utah that have already begun developing new legislation and frameworks better suited to modern nuclear technologies, allowing for a more conducive regulatory environment.
Burlison also probed the impact of regulatory processes on technological innovation in the nuclear sector.
Epstein responded by commending companies for their efforts despite the arduous nature of current regulations.
“Right now, there’s just an enormous gap between idea and action,” he explained.
He emphasized the need to change negative cultural perceptions surrounding nuclear energy, pointing to the benign outcomes of the Three Mile Island incident, which caused no fatalities.
Epstein remarked, “We need to stop demonizing nuclear… It’s fundamentally safe.”
Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) shifted the focus to the profitability and cost-efficiency of the nuclear energy industry compared to other renewable energies.
He invited Epstein to elaborate on how avoiding repetitive designs and unnecessary regulations could benefit consumers financially.
Epstein underscored the importance of allowing nuclear energy companies to operate competitively while avoiding unnecessary regulatory costs.
“He explained that while profit motivations drive innovation in many sectors, the nuclear industry has faced hurdles due to excessive regulations and the subsidization of less reliable energy sources. “
He argued that the economic viability of nuclear power plummets when companies are forced to retrofit different environmental statements for identical designs, increasing operational costs.
Moreover, he highlighted that competitors, superior energy sources receive backing through subsidies that distort the market, further diminishing the profitability of nuclear power.
“It’s why we have a shortage of gas turbines,” Epstein concluded.
He went on to assert that the Big Beautiful Bill’s cuts to renewable energy subsidies represent significant progress for the nuclear sector.
In conclusion, the hearing illustrated a growing recognition among lawmakers and energy policy experts that reforming regulatory frameworks and modernizing nuclear energy technology could propel the United States toward a safer and more reliable energy future.
image source from：oversight
