Bill to boost nuclear energy receives overwhelming support in the House of Representatives

The House of Representatives this week overwhelmingly passed legislation aimed at accelerating the development of a new generation of nuclear power plants, the latest sign that a once controversial energy source is now gaining broad political support in Washington.

The 365-36 vote on Wednesday reflected the bipartisan nature of the bill, known as the Nuclear Energy Promotion Act. It received 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. It also drew support from Republicans who have downplayed the risks of climate change but say nuclear power could strengthen the country’s economy and energy security.

“It’s been fascinating to see how bipartisan advanced nuclear power has become,” said Joshua Freed, leader of the climate and energy program at Third Way, a center-left think tank. “This is not an issue where there is a major partisan or ideological divide.”

The bill would direct the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees the nation’s nuclear power plants, to streamline its processes for approving new reactor designs. The legislation, which is backed by the nuclear industry, would also increase hiring at the commission, reduce fees for applicants, establish financial awards for new types of reactors and encourage the development of nuclear power at the sites of idled coal-fired power plants.

Together, the changes would amount to “the most significant update to nuclear energy policy in the United States in more than a generation,” said Rep. Jeff Duncan, Republican of South Carolina, the bill’s lead sponsor.

In the Senate, Republicans and Democrats have written their own legislation to promote nuclear energy. The two chambers are expected to discuss how to reconcile their differences in the coming months, but final passage is not assured, especially since so many other spending bills remain in limbo.

“If Congress was functioning properly, this would be one of those bills that you would expect to pass,” Mr. Freed said.

Nuclear power currently generates 18 percent of the country’s electricity, but only three reactors have been completed in the United States since 1996. While some environmentalists remain concerned about radioactive waste and the safety of the reactors, the biggest hurdle nuclear power currently faces is cost.

Conventional nuclear power plants have become extremely expensive to build, and some electric utilities have gone bankrupt trying. Two recent reactors built at the Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia cost $35 billion, double initial estimates.

In response, nearly a dozen companies are developing a new generation of smaller reactors, a fraction of the size of the one at Vogtle. The hope is that these reactors will have a smaller upfront price tag, making it less risky for utilities to invest in them. That, in turn, could help the industry reduce costs by building the same type of reactor over and over again.

The Biden administration has expressed strong support for nuclear power in its efforts to transition the country away from fossil fuels; the Ministry of Energy has offered billions of dollars to help establish advanced reactor demonstration projects in Wyoming and Texas.

But 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 in approving new drafts. They say many of the rules the commission has in place were designed for an older era of reactors and are no longer appropriate for advanced reactors that may be inherently safer.

“Addressing the climate crisis means modernizing our approach to all clean energy sources, including nuclear power,” said Rep. Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado. “Nuclear energy is not a panacea, but if we want to achieve net zero CO2 emissions by 2050, it must be part of the mix.”

Among other changes, the House bill would require the NRC to consider not only the safety of the reactors, but also “the potential of nuclear energy to improve the public welfare” and “the benefits of nuclear energy 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 weighs both the risks and benefits of new drugs. Critics say that the NRC has focused too much on the risks in the past.

But that provision updating the NRC’s mission was opposed by three dozen progressive Democrats who voted against the bill and declared it could undermine reactor safety. The specific language is not in the core Senate bill.

Even if Congress passes new legislation, the nuclear industry faces other challenges. Many utilities remain reluctant to invest in new technologies, and reactor developers have a long history of failing to build projects on time and on budget.

Last year, NuScale Power, a nuclear startup, announced it would cancel 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 failed to attract enough customers to buy power.