The House this week overwhelmingly passed legislation aimed at speeding up the development of a new generation of nuclear power plants, the latest sign that a once-controversial energy source is now attracting broad political support in Washington.
The 365-36 vote Wednesday reflected the bipartisan nature of the bill, known as the Atomic Energy Promotion Act. It won support from Democrats who support nuclear power because it emits no greenhouse gases and can generate electricity 24 hours a day to supplement solar and wind power. He also received support from Republicans who downplayed the dangers of climate change but say nuclear power could boost the nation’s economy and energy security.
“It’s been fascinating to see how bipartisan advanced nuclear power has become,” said Joshua Freed, who heads the climate and energy program at Third Way, a center-left think tank. “This is not an issue where there is any great partisan or ideological divide.”
The bill would direct the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees the nation’s nuclear power plants, to streamline its procedures for approving new reactor designs. The legislation, which is backed by the nuclear industry, would also increase recruitment to the commission, reduce fees for applicants, establish financial awards for new types of reactors and encourage nuclear power development at the sites of retiring coal plants.
Together, the changes would amount to “the most significant update to nuclear power policy in the United States in a generation,” said Representative Jeff Duncan, R-South Carolina, the bill’s lead sponsor.
In the Senate, Republicans and Democrats have written their own legislation to promote nuclear power. The two chambers are expected to discuss how to reconcile their differences in the coming months, but a final vote is not assured, particularly with so many other spending bills remaining in limbo.
“If Congress was working well, this is one of those bills that you would expect to pass,” Mr. Fried said.
Nuclear power currently generates 18 percent of the nation’s electricity, but only three reactors have been completed in the United States since 1996. Although some environmentalists remain concerned about radioactive waste and reactor safety, the biggest hurdle facing today nuclear power is the cost.
Conventional nuclear plants have become prohibitively expensive to build, and some utilities have gone bankrupt trying. Two recent reactors built at the Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia cost $35 billion, double the original estimates.
In response, nearly a dozen companies are developing a new generation of smaller reactors, a fraction of the size of those at Vogtle. The hope is that these reactors will have a lower initial price, making it less risky for utilities to invest in them. This, in turn, could help industry begin to reduce costs by building the same type of reactor over and over again.
The Biden administration has voiced strong support for nuclear power as it seeks to move the country away from fossil fuels. the Department of Energy has provided billions of dollars to help build advanced reactor demonstration projects in Wyoming and Texas.
However, before a new reactor can be built, its design must be reviewed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Some Democrats and Republicans in Congress have criticized the NRC for being too slow to approve new plans. Many of the regulations the commission uses, they say, were designed for an earlier era of reactors and are no longer appropriate for advanced reactors that may be inherently safer.
“Addressing the climate crisis means we must modernize our approach to all clean energy sources, including nuclear power,” said Representative Diana DeGette, D-Colorado. “Nuclear isn’t a silver bullet, but if we’re going to get to net zero carbon emissions by 2050, it has to be part of the mix.”
Among other changes, the House bill would require the NRC to consider not only reactor safety but also “the potential of nuclear power to improve the general welfare” and “the benefits of nuclear power technology to society.”
Supporters of the change say it will make the NRC more like other federal safety agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration, which weigh both the risks and benefits of new drugs. In the past, critics say, the NRC has focused too much on risks.
But that provision to update the NRC’s mission was opposed by three dozen progressive Democrats who voted against the bill and said it could undermine reactor safety. That language is not in the Senate nuclear bill.
Even if Congress passes new legislation, the nuclear industry faces other challenges. Many utilities are still reluctant to invest in new technologies, and reactor developers have a long history of failing to build projects on time and under budget.
Last year, NuScale Power, a nuclear startup, announced it was canceling plans to build six smaller reactors in Idaho. The project, which had received significant federal support and was intended to demonstrate the technology, was already well advanced in the NRC process. But NuScale struggled with rising costs and ultimately couldn’t sign up enough customers to buy its power.
