Anthony Iafrate
Associate Editor
Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee is introducing legislation seeking to remove regulations plaguing nuclear energy developers and help the U.S. compete with adversaries in harnessing the power source.
Lee’s Nuclear Energy Innovation and Deployment Act (NEIDA) “modernizes and clarifies” the ability of the Department of Energy (DOE) over nuclear power facilities and aims to speed up the commercialization of the energy source, according to a one-page summary of the bill shared with the Daily Caller News Foundation. The one-pager notes that the need for “flexible pathways” for nuclear energy deployment and commercialization is becoming “increasingly urgent” due to China and Russia’s efforts to outpace the U.S. in nuclear power production, as well as anticipated skyrocketing energy demand partly driven by the artificial intelligence (AI) boom. (RELATED: Trump Admin And States Must Pick ‘Reality’ Over ‘Bad Science’ In Nuclear Energy Partnership, Analysts Say)
Republican Pennsylvania Sen. Dave McCormick is cosponsoring the legislation introduced Tuesday.
“Electricity demand is rising at a pace we haven’t seen in generations. We can meet that demand, or we can fall behind,” Lee, the chair of the Senate Energy Committee, told the Daily Caller News Foundation in a statement. “The biggest obstacle is our inability to build.”
“To meet demand, we must accelerate the development of nuclear energy by removing regulatory barriers, unlocking federal resources, and creating a path from demonstration to deployment,” the senator added. “Other countries are already preparing their grids for the next generation of technologies. The United States should be doing the same.”
“Despite significant technological progress, advanced nuclear developers face a persistent ‘valley of death’ between demonstration and commercial deployment — at precisely the moment when rapid deployment is most needed,” the one-pager on the bill states. “Costly and complex regulations, limited pathways for scaled deployment, high capital costs and financing risk, and fuel supply constraints have been longstanding challenges for the U.S. nuclear industry.”
NEIDA would specifically clarify and expand “the DOE’s authority over nuclear facilities and activities conducted under contract with and for the account of DOE, including privately sponsored and reactor demonstration projects,” according to the summary. It would also create a clear pathway, led by the department, to authorize commercial reactor and fuel cycle facilities on federal land or for federal purposes.”
Furthermore, the legislation would direct the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to modify current regulations kneecapping the department’s statutory authority regarding the power source.
Representatives from multiple nuclear energy companies applauded the bill upon its announced introduction.
“The urgency of this moment cannot be overstated,” Liz Muller, CEO of Deep Fission, Inc., told the DCNF in a statement. “Without decisive legislative action, the United States risks ceding ground to foreign state-owned enterprises that are actively exporting reactor technology and expanding their geopolitical influence worldwide.”
“Our competitors are not waiting. They are financing, building, and deploying nuclear infrastructure across the globe locking in long-term relationships and establishing energy dependencies that will shape the international order for decades,” she emphasized. “The decisions made in this Congress will determine whether the United States leads the global nuclear renaissance or watches it from the sidelines. NEIDA offers a clear and constructive pathway forward.”
“This legislation directly addresses the regulatory ambiguity that has slowed advanced reactor development for decades, codifying DOE’s authority over non-commercial demonstration reactors and establishing the Nuclear Energy Launch Pad as a permanent pathway for companies to test and validate their technology before entering NRC commercial licensing,” Isaiah Taylor, founder and CEO of gas reactor developer Valar Atomics, said in a statement sent to the DCNF.
“Recent momentum across Congress and the Administration continues to reinforce the role of advanced nuclear in meeting growing U.S. energy demand,” Jacob DeWitte, CEO and co-founder of advanced nuclear reactor designer Oklo, told the DCNF in a statement. “Efforts to build on recent executive actions with longer-term policy support can help create a clearer pathway to deploy new infrastructure and unlock domestic bridge fuel like surplus plutonium.”
Matt Loszak, CEO of Texas-based Aalo Atomics, said in a statement to the DCNF that the Nuclear Energy Launch Pad created by Lee’s legislation “meaningfully expands opportunities for private companies to demonstrate their technologies in partnership with the [DOE].”
Terrestrial Energy told the DCNF in a statement the bill is a “logical and much-welcome step for accelerating the expansion of nuclear power in America.”
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please
It didn’t specifically say it but it seems to me they are greasing the skids for new technology. I am not against that but what we really need is to grease the skids for the technology that has already been approved. It’s been approved we know how to build it let’s get going on it now.
Ever since the baby boomers left high school they have been insanely anti-nuclear and bent on preventing it anywhere at any time.
Consequently the US legislatures, Federal and State, have concocted a spider-web of interlocking restrictions and prohibitions and limitations on anything which could remotely offend the environment, the planet, the inhabited neighbourhood and anything else designated as nature or wilderness.
The Population Bomb,sic, was used as collateral and should it have been heeded would have eliminated or prevented from being born, 5 billion people who are alive today and better fed on average than those alive when it was written.
A huge volume of legislation needs to be repealed – in the US Trump is doing a lot but so much more remains on the books.
Blame Jane for her role.
The real irony being that if you watch the movie, when the component failure happens and the nuclear plant experiences an “event,” the plant safety systems kick in and rapidly put a stop to it.
The only death being someone got shot, nothing to do with the safety of nuclear power.
Hey, I’m a baby boomer.. I have always thought that nuclear energy was one of the most logical ways into the future.
Nuclear fuel is only a real danger to the world when rabid idealists are allowed to concentrate it to higher grades to make weapons out of it. There are some people that should not be allowed anywhere near the stuff.
When handled properly, its just like any other source of reliable dispatchable energy.
I am a baby boomer, and have left high school, and I am decidedly not anit-nuclear.
Boomer here, been resolutely pro nuclear since high school thanks to my science teacher, Bill Brewer, who extolled its virtues and explained how manageable the risks were. It was going to be too cheap to bother metering then the regulators got involved and messed the whole thing up.
I’m a Baby Boomer and I support the use of nuclear power generation.
Stereotyping a whole generation does not reflect reality.
We shouldn’t blame boomers as a group. I’m a boo.er and I’ve never er embraced any of the anti-nuclear fanaticism.
I’ll join the Boomers for Nukes Club.
Never was fond’a the Doomers uninformed rhetoric.
Boomer here.
The greatest “danger” of nuclear radiation is to our electronics, cell phones, laptops, car computers, etc.
The danger to humans only happens at places like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The number of people affected by radiation from the Nevada test site far exceeds the total from all nuclear reactor power stations worldwide combined.
Even Chernobyl, an obvious case of poor engineering management, did not have the catastrophic impacts everyone assumes happened. The Fukushima was less intense than a sunburn from a long day at the beach. 3-mile island was exemplary in how safety systems work.
Google AI lists 10 nuclear incidents, with the curious inclusion of a Soviet nuclear sub.
We get more radiation exposure from radon in our basements that all the reactors combined.
Compare the 400-plus humans affected by these to the multitude who die in the cold.
Cost, risk, benefit analysis is mandatory.
1962, 6th grade – I think I was the class projectionists that fed the (cellulose?) film into the projector. That day’s movie lesson: The Nuclear Genie that was going to power America and the world into the future. Not sure this (below link) “Disneyland – Our Friend the Atom (1957)” was the film, but it probably is. You can’t get any more American Apple Pie than 1960s Disney. To save time, start at about 37 min: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkwadgJORFM After the film, I was enthralled.
Did I read that correctly, reducing regulatory obstacles while increasing DoE authority in the matter?
Seems like a double-edged sword, one that the other “side” could turn against intent.
A fair question and given all the climate related nonsense, it kind of makes sense.
It could be possible
It seems unlikely, having read other stuff. The DoE authority in question is in relationship to the NRC.
NRC is the licensing/regulatory arm.
DoE is the research (science and engineering) arm.
This, found as the second-to-last paragraph of the above article:
“Matt Loszak, CEO of Texas-based Aalo Atomics, said in a statement to the DCNF that the Nuclear Energy Launch Pad created by Lee’s legislation ‘meaningfully expands opportunities for private companies to demonstrate their technologies in partnership with the [DOE]’.”
Translation of Loszak’s term “partnership”: taxpayer funding, via DOE, of our private company and others similar businesses seeking free money that we are unable to raise from private investors.
Wow, you got all of that out of 1 word?
Another definition of partnership is shared responsibilities and liabilities.
I am not claiming this is the “in partnership” referenced. However there are clauses that apply.
US Department of State
2 FAM 970
Public-Private Partnerships
https://fam.state.gov/FAM/02FAM/02FAM0970.html
2 FAM 971.1 Policy
c. … Similarly, a public-private partnership is not in itself a vehicle for transferring funds to outside entities or establishing a principal-agent relationship, and therefore should not be used as an alternative to grants or cooperative agreements for those purposes.
Your translation shows your obvious bias and reflects how you would do things. Fortunately, you are not involved in this.
No doubt you would try to make an end run on the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).
I have been trained in FAR. Have you?
of our private company and others similar businesses seeking free money that we are unable to raise from private investors.
Where are you on all the “clean” energy subsidies, EV subsisties, etc.?
You are obviously speaking as one unfamiliar about how the word “partnership” can be—in fact, has been—twisted about in interpretation over the last 50 or so years. A major cause of such misperception is likely due to your own admission of having been “trained in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)”, as if that is the only area where “partnerships” are referenced.
Pity.
For your edification, from Google’s AI bot:
“Solyndra was not legally structured as a traditional partnership with the federal government, but it was considered a “partnership” in a political and financial sense due to its heavily subsidized nature and close ties with private investors associated with the Obama administration . . .
The company received a $535 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy (DOE) as part of the 2009 stimulus package, which was hailed by the administration as a partnership between government and green technology innovators.”
Also from Google’s AI bot:
“Enron Corporation was not a single partnership; it was a publicly traded corporation that used a vast, complex network of hundreds of private, off-balance-sheet partnerships—known as Special Purpose Entities (SPEs) or SPEs like Chewco, LJM, and Raptor—to hide massive debt, inflate profits, and hide failing assets.”
Also from Google’s AI bot:
“Based on reports from government watchdogs, researchers, and media investigations, the most massive failures of U.S. government partnerships often involve large-scale technology projects, military contracting, and infrastructure privatization. These failures are typically characterized by massive cost overruns, extended delays, or complete failure to deliver expected services.
Here are some of the most notable examples of U.S. government partnership failures:
. . .
Healthcare.gov (2013): The rollout of the ACA website is a notorious example of a public-private partnership failure. Developed by multiple contractors, including CGI Group, the site imploded at launch due to lack of effective planning, oversight, and testing, requiring an emergency “trauma team” to fix.
DoD HR/Payroll System (DiMS): A partnership with Oracle PeopleSoft and Northrop Grumman to modernize the Department of Defense’s HR systems. It was cancelled after 13 years and over $1 billion spent, with no functional results.
Secure Border Initiative Network (SBInet): A partnership with Boeing to create a “virtual border fence” using sensors and software. The project was cancelled in 2011 after costing taxpayers $1 billion for only 53 miles of coverage, with the system failing to meet performance requirements.”
Fortunately, as you stated, I was not involved with any of this.