OPINION:
The Trump administration is reportedly preparing executive orders to reform the outdated and arduous regulatory process governing nuclear power plant permitting and construction. They can’t come a minute too soon.
This approach is a refreshing departure from Washington’s go-to playbook of using taxpayer money and other subsidies to move nuclear forward, such as those in the Inflation Reduction Act under consideration for repeal.
Using the government to pick winners and losers always fails. Subsidies obscure critical economic signals essential in guiding any commercial endeavor toward success. They create a financial mirage that makes unproductive enterprises look profitable. This fiction persists as long as the subsidies remain.
This illusion relieves politicians from addressing underlying policy and regulatory barriers. It also denies the nuclear industry the pricing signals necessary to indicate where to invest resources profitably.
That is why subsidies never lead to economically sustainable and competitive industries. They lead to government dependence, capital misallocation, stunted innovation and a weaker industry. Perhaps worst of all, the financial support eventually serves to calcify the problematic regulatory and policy barriers.
No industry could ever reach its potential with such handouts.
Fortunately, the orders the Trump administration is reportedly considering, focusing on permitting and regulatory reform, can help improve the nuclear energy industry.
Critically, the orders would establish deadlines for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to review new reactor applications. This idea is not new, per se. Efforts to bring such efficiencies to the NRC have been ongoing for years. The Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act and the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act are two vital efforts to do that.
President Trump’s executive orders will help ensure that the work begun by these important legislative efforts results in meaningful reforms because they won’t just leave the NRC to determine what those regulatory reforms look like. The orders also draw on expertise from other agencies.
It’s no secret that large, powerful bureaucracies resist change. Relying on them to execute reforms on their own is futile. That’s why bringing multiple perspectives, areas of expertise and interests to the process is essential. Subjecting establishment perspectives and prior assumptions to scrutiny and questioning will be the key to discovering the best way forward.
Ultimately, however, making the current regulatory apparatus work more efficiently is not enough if the basis on which that apparatus depends is outdated and a major cost driver to nuclear energy. That is precisely the case with nuclear energy and regulation around low-dose radiation exposure, which relies on the precautionary principle and the linear no-threshold model to assess those risks.
The model presumes that any dose of radiation, no matter how small, increases cancer risks and, therefore, any exposure is dangerous. Combined with the precautionary principle, which essentially says that in the absence of certainty that an action will or will not cause harm, any action should be avoided, the foundation for hamstringing nuclear energy has been laid.
There is ample evidence that exposure to low doses of radiation does not present a significant threat to human health and safety, and, therefore, aiming for no radiation is an inappropriate approach to regulating exposure. If that’s the case, there is no justification for applying the precautionary principle. That is not to say that radiation exposure should not be regulated, but the regulations should reflect the best scientific understanding of the risks posed.
This science-based, paradigm-shifting reform could change nuclear energy’s fortunes. Acknowledging this has been largely taboo in public policy discussions until now. Mr. Trump’s executive orders could change that.
In addition, the orders would facilitate the construction of reactors on federal sites and focus research and development dollars on pilot and demonstration projects.
E&E News said one of the orders, focusing on supply chain problems, would empower the Department of Energy to bolster uranium enrichment, develop used fuel reprocessing, restart closed plants and build a nuclear workforce.
Though all these are important endeavors, the government does not need to oversee them and taxpayers do not need to fund them. If the earlier reforms are enacted, these investments will naturally follow.
U.S. commercial nuclear policy is at a crossroads.
Does America want an industry that remains too expensive, lacks innovation, and depends on taxpayer dollars and government support?
The Inflation Reduction Act and its subsidies provide that path.
Or does America desire the opportunity to build a uniquely American industry that is competitive, innovative and world-leading, as well as informed by consumer and producer demand, shaped by free enterprise and delivered by the private sector?
If so, then the executive orders Mr. Trump is reportedly preparing are the way to go.
• Jack Spencer, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation Center for Energy, Climate and Environment, is the author of “Nuclear Revolution: Powering the Next Generation” (Optimum Publishing International, 2024).
Please read our comment policy before commenting.