Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Politics

Congress Might Be on the Verge of Passing the Year’s First Climate Law

Turns out, nuclear energy is the rare point on which Democrats and Republicans can all agree.

Nuclear power.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Congress appears to be very close to passing the first climate law of 2024. But don’t look for the word ‘climate‘ in it.

On Wednesday, the House voted overwhelmingly to pass the Atomic Energy Advancement Act, a bill designed to update nuclear energy laws and regulations to better accommodate newer, advanced nuclear reactor designs.

Nuclear plants are the largest source of clean energy in the U.S. and building more of them is one of the rare climate solutions that Republicans and Democrats can agree on. Electricity demand is surging for the first time in decades, thanks in part to the boom in domestic manufacturing of electric vehicles, batteries, solar panels, and other devices needed for the energy transition. In addition to not producing greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear plants are uniquely equipped to help meet that demand because they are extremely reliable and can run at near-full capacity pretty much 24/7.

And yet nuclear technology is in an awkward phase in the U.S. Recent attempts to build old-school reactors have ended up years behind schedule and gone billions over budget. Meanwhile, there are lots of companies itching to deploy newer designs, but U.S. nuclear policy is geared toward the older tech and it’s not easy for newer ideas to break through.

The House bill aims to address this, first and foremost, by directing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal body that issues nuclear plant licenses, to update its mission statement. The new vision for the agency would be to operate “in a manner that is efficient and does not unnecessarily limit the potential of nuclear energy to improve the general welfare and the benefits of nuclear energy technology to society.” Though it’s not spelled out explicitly, that includes the climate benefits.

Republican Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina, who was one of the bill’s lead sponsors, said in a statement that expanding U.S. nuclear “both here and abroad” is essential both to reducing emissions and to “building durable economic and strategic relationships around the world” — a reference, most likely, to the growing nuclear ambitions of China and Russia. But he was also motivated by challenges much closer to home.

“South Carolina is growing which means our power demand is increasing,” Duncan said. “My home state uses twice as much energy as we produce which is leading to a resource adequacy crisis in the state — while the Nation also sits on the precipice of an energy crisis. The good news for South Carolina is that we are blessed with expertise in nuclear technology.”

The bill comes on the heels of COP28, the United Nations Climate Conference held in December, where the Biden administration signed on to an international declaration to triple nuclear energy by 2050 in order to reduce emissions and keep global temperatures from climbing to catastrophic heights.

The change in mission statement is particularly important, Adam Stein, the director of the nuclear energy innovation program at the Breakthrough Institute told me. He said the NRC has a fairly broad mandate from Congress, but unlike other federal agencies that consider costs and benefits in their decision-making, the Commission currently focuses exclusively on safety. “The agency's self-imposed limitations prevent a comprehensive evaluation of its role in addressing crucial societal challenges such as climate change and clean energy adoption.” He said the amendment would empower the Commission to consider a wider array of factors, including public health, environmental protection, and national energy goals.

To live up to this new ethos, the Commission would have to establish practices for evaluating applications that enable faster and more predictable reviews. The bill directs the NRC to streamline environmental assessments, in line with the National Environmental Policy Act reforms Congress passed last summer, and establish nuclear-specific “categorical exclusions,” or actions that do not require environmental review. It also boosts the NRC's staffing capacity to process applications more efficiently.

The NRC would also have to develop an expedited process for applicants using previously licensed reactor designs and that plan to build on or adjacent to an existing nuclear plant. Today the process can take five years, and the Commission must limit it, in these cases, to 25 months max. The Commission would also have to lower the fees it charges companies to apply for licenses.

The bill contains other reforms, including directing the Commission to create a separate regulatory framework for fusion reactors. The Department of Energy would have to update export requirements to encourage the deployment of U.S. technologies abroad. The bill also creates a pilot project, directing the DOE to enter into a long-term power purchase agreement with a yet-to-be-built, first-of-a-kind nuclear plant by the end of 2028. Such an agreement would give the lucky developer the certainty they need to finance a riskier project.

Now, the legislation will head to the Senate, which will have to reconcile it with a bill passed last summer called the Advance Act that contained many — but not all — of the same policies and programs.

“I think when you compare those you'll see relatively broad agreement between the House and the Senate that something needs to be done here,” Evan Chapman, the U.S. federal policy director at Clean Air Task Force, told me.

Green

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Energy

All the Nuclear Workers Are Building Data Centers Now

There has been no new nuclear construction in the U.S. since Vogtle, but the workers are still plenty busy.

A hardhat on AI.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The Trump administration wants to have 10 new large nuclear reactors under construction by 2030 — an ambitious goal under any circumstances. It looks downright zany, though, when you consider that the workforce that should be driving steel into the ground, pouring concrete, and laying down wires for nuclear plants is instead building and linking up data centers.

This isn’t how it was supposed to be. Thousands of people, from construction laborers to pipefitters to electricians, worked on the two new reactors at the Plant Vogtle in Georgia, which were intended to be the start of a sequence of projects, erecting new Westinghouse AP1000 reactors across Georgia and South Carolina. Instead, years of delays and cost overruns resulted in two long-delayed reactors 35 miles southeast of Augusta, Georgia — and nothing else.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
Q&A

How California Is Fighting the Battery Backlash

A conversation with Dustin Mulvaney of San Jose State University

Dustin Mulvaney.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is a follow up with Dustin Mulvaney, a professor of environmental studies at San Jose State University. As you may recall we spoke with Mulvaney in the immediate aftermath of the Moss Landing battery fire disaster, which occurred near his university’s campus. Mulvaney told us the blaze created a true-blue PR crisis for the energy storage industry in California and predicted it would cause a wave of local moratoria on development. Eight months after our conversation, it’s clear as day how right he was. So I wanted to check back in with him to see how the state’s development landscape looks now and what the future may hold with the Moss Landing dust settled.

Help my readers get a state of play – where are we now in terms of the post-Moss Landing resistance landscape?

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

A Tough Week for Wind Power and Batteries — But a Good One for Solar

The week’s most important fights around renewable energy.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Nantucket, Massachusetts – A federal court for the first time has granted the Trump administration legal permission to rescind permits given to renewable energy projects.

  • This week District Judge Tanya Chutkan – an Obama appointee – ruled that Trump’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has the legal latitude to request the withdrawal of permits previously issued to offshore wind projects. Chutkan found that any “regulatory uncertainty” from rescinding a permit would be an “insubstantial” hardship and not enough to stop the court from approving the government’s desires to reconsider issuing it.
  • The ruling was in a case that the Massachusetts town of Nantucket brought against the SouthCoast offshore wind project; SouthCoast developer Ocean Winds said in statements to media after the decision that it harbors “serious concerns” about the ruling but is staying committed to the project through this new layer of review.
  • But it’s important to understand this will have profound implications for other projects up and down the coastline, because the court challenges against other offshore wind projects bear a resemblance to the SouthCoast litigation. This means that project opponents could reach deals with the federal government to “voluntarily remand” permits, technically sending those documents back to the federal government for reconsideration – only for the approvals to get lost in bureaucratic limbo.
  • What I’m watching for: do opponents of land-based solar and wind projects look at this ruling and decide to go after those facilities next?

2. Harvey County, Kansas – The sleeper election result of 2025 happened in the town of Halstead, Kansas, where voters backed a moratorium on battery storage.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow