American Nuclear Energy Expansion: Powering a Clean and Secure Future (U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security)

Hearing	American Nuclear Energy Expansion: Powering a Clean and Secure Future
Committee	U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security
Date	April 18, 2023

 

Hearing Takeaways:

• Domestic Deployment of Nuclear Energy: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed interest in working to promote the domestic deployment of nuclear energy sources. They stated that greater deployment of nuclear energy will be key for meeting the U.S.’s energy needs and reducing carbon emissions. Of note, Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Subcommittee Ranking Member Diana DeGette (D-CO), Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), and Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) highlighted how they recently solicited feedback from key nuclear associations and stakeholders about potential federal nuclear energy legislation. Subcommittee Members expressed interest in using the hearing to inform the development of this legislation.
  • Regulatory Reforms: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses stated that the current application and licensing processes for new nuclear projects often impede the deployment of new nuclear energy facilities. They expressed interest in working to streamline and provide predictability to these processes. Mr. Cohen recommended that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) take a less prescriptive approach to reviewing nuclear energy projects. He suggested that the NRC identify essential metrics for measuring safety and then permit nuclear energy project applicants to explain how their projects will satisfy these metrics. He also stated that the NRC should embed regulators in the testing and dispatching of new nuclear energy technologies to expedite the approval of these technologies. Of note, Subcommittee Chairman Duncan indicated his intention to hold a Subcommittee hearing with the NRC sometime during the upcoming summer.
  • The NRC’s Proposed 10 CFR Part 53 Rule: Mr. Repko, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Harrell criticized the NRC’s proposed 10 CFR Part 53 Rule and expressed interest in working to improve it. This proposed rule seeks to establish a risk-informed technologically neutral framework suitable for licensing advanced nuclear energy technologies.
  • Extending the Lifespan of the Existing Domestic Nuclear Fleet: Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI), Dr. Gehin, and Mr. Repko expressed interest in working to extend the lifespans of the U.S.’s existing nuclear fleet. Dr. Gehin and Mr. Repko noted how most nuclear facilities will outlive their initial lifespans through having their components replaced on a frequent basis.
  • Workforce Needs: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses noted how workforce shortages serve as a key constraint on the U.S.’s ability to scale up its nuclear energy industry. They expressed interest in supporting workforce training and highlighted how nuclear industry jobs tend to pay more than other energy industry jobs.
  • Conversion of Non-Nuclear Power Plants into Nuclear Power Plants: Several Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed interest in the prospects of converging non-nuclear power plants (such as coal-fired power plants) into nuclear plants. They noted how these non-nuclear power plants already have water and transmission infrastructure (as well as employee bases) that can in turn support the establishment of new nuclear facilities. Rep. Guthrie cautioned however that many new nuclear facilities require less workers than previous energy facilities as a result of automation.
  • Relationship Between Nuclear Energy and Other Types of Energy: A key area of discussion during the hearing involved the relationship between nuclear energy and other forms of carbon-free energy. Subcommittee Republicans, Mr. Repko, and Mr. Cohen expressed concerns that power generation from renewable energy sources (such as wind and solar energy) can be intermittent and asserted that the U.S. should focus on nuclear energy given its baseload and dispatchable nature.
  • Recent Laws to Promote Nuclear Energy Development and Deployment: Subcommittee Democrats, Dr. Gehin, Mr. Repko, and Mr. Cohen applauded the recent enactments of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. They highlighted how these laws contain incentives to support the development and deployment of nuclear energy technologies. 
• Foreign Deployment of Nuclear Energy: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses argued that the U.S. will need to support the foreign deployment of nuclear energy technologies to advance the U.S.’s national security goals, strengthen its geopolitical influence, and combat climate change.
  • Growth of the Chinese and Russian Nuclear Industries: Subcommittee Members, Dr. Gehin, and Mr. Harrell warned of the growing nuclear energy industries of China and Russia and stated that these countries are using their nuclear energy industries to exert influence over foreign countries through long-term deals. They argued that the U.S. could not cede its global leadership in nuclear energy technologies to China and Russia (especially considering the expected global growth of the sector).
  • U.S. Support for Foreign Nuclear Energy Projects: Subcommittee Republicans and the hearing’s witnesses expressed interest in having the U.S. support global efforts to deploy nuclear energy projects. Several Subcommittee Republicans highlighted their recent Congressional delegation trip to Poland, which had involved a deal for the U.S. to finance the construction of several Polish nuclear facilities. Mr. Harrell noted how about 50 countries have expressed interest in further pursuing nuclear energy and commented that the U.S. has an “immense” opportunity to partner with these countries.
  • License Harmonization: Mr. Cohen and Mr. Harrell called for harmonizing nuclear regulatory licenses across countries. He elaborated that the U.S. should work to make the NRC’s standards translate to foreign countries to provide the U.S.’s nuclear energy industry with easier access to global markets.
  • International Support for Nuclear Energy Projects: Mr. Cohen suggested that the U.S. does not need to be the only party to mitigate the financial risks associated with international nuclear energy projects. He stated that there could be an international bank for nuclear infrastructure to help finance foreign nuclear energy projects. He stated that his proposed bank for would involve numerous member countries and would mitigate the financing risks associated with nuclear energy projects.
• Nuclear Innovation: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed interest in efforts to develop and deploy advanced nuclear reactors and small modular reactors (SMRs). They noted how these innovative reactor designs can enable nuclear energy facilities that are easier to deploy (from both financial and logistical standpoints), safer to operate (because they do not rely on water as a coolant), and generate less nuclear waste. They stated that the U.S. can bring down the price of these technologies through mass production and supporting the U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Project (ARDP). Dr. Gehin estimated that certain smaller microreactors will be deployed within the next three to five years and that the larger SMRs will be deployed between 2027 and 2030.
  • Non-Energy Generation Uses of Nuclear Energy Technology: Subcommittee Republicans, Dr. Gehin, and Mr. Harrell discussed how the heat generated from new nuclear energy technologies can be used to support hydrogen, steel, and chemical processing and production. Mr. Harrell stated that these novel non-energy generating uses of nuclear energy technologies will necessitate that nuclear regulators approve advanced nuclear projects that will be located closer to businesses and people.
  • Risk Reduction Strategies for Innovative Nuclear Energy Technologies: Mr. Repko, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Harrell discussed how many innovators are afraid to pursue new nuclear energy technologies because of cost and regulatory uncertainty. They suggested that the federal government provide insurance and tax incentives to encourage companies to pursue these innovative technologies. Mr. Cohen further recommended that the U.S. government become a large purchaser of new nuclear energy facilities to help drive down the costs of producing new reactors. 
  • U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Nuclear Energy Applications: Subcommittee Members, Dr. Gehin, and Mr. Harrell expressed interest in exploring potential opportunities for cooperation between the U.S. Department of Energy and the DoD on nuclear energy projects. They expressed particular interest in the DoD’s Project Pele Mobile Microreactor and Perform Demonstration. This Demonstration seeks to enable transportable nuclear reactors to power military operations.
• Nuclear Fuel: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed interest in ensuring that the U.S. maintains robust nuclear fuel supplies and production capabilities. They asserted that these supplies and capabilities will be key to enabling the U.S. to increase its development and deployment of nuclear energy.
  • U.S. Reliance on Russian Nuclear Fuels: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses raised concerns over the U.S.’s heavy reliance on Russian nuclear fuels. They noted that about 95 percent of uranium used in the U.S. is imported and that about 50 percent of this imported uranium comes from Russia and Kazakhstan. They expressed specific concerns that Russia’s recent invasion of Ukraine can undermine the security of the U.S.’s nuclear supply chain. Rep. Ann Kuster (D-NH) and Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA) both expressed interest in proposals to ban imports of Russian uranium.
  • High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU): Subcommittee Members, Dr. Gehin, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Harrell expressed interest in ensuring that the U.S. have a sufficient domestic HALEU supply and production capability. They noted how HALEU is key for powering many advanced nuclear reactors and raised concerns over the U.S. nuclear energy industry’s reliance on Russian HALEU. Mr. Harrell called on the Biden administration to launch the Advanced Nuclear Fuel Availability Program and stated that the Program would provide U.S. companies with certainty to ramp up their domestic HALEU production.
  • Domestic Uranium Production: Subcommittee Vice Chair John Curtis (R-UT) raised concerns that many of the U.S.’s existing uranium mills are under political pressure to close. Dr. Gehin noted how the global price of uranium is very cheap, which can render U.S. uranium mills economically uncompetitive. Mr. Cohen argued that the U.S. will need to ensure socially and environmentally responsible mining practices if it seeks to significantly scale up its nuclear energy power capabilities.
• Nuclear Waste: Subcommittee Democrats and the hearing’s witnesses stated that the U.S. must address its existing supply of nuclear waste if it seeks to increase its deployment of nuclear energy. The hearing’s witnesses argued that the U.S. possesses sufficient technologies and capabilities to address its nuclear waste supply and that the main challenges to addressing this waste are political.
  • Long-Term Storage of Nuclear Waste: Dr. Gehin and Mr. Harrell stated that the U.S. will need to construct a spent nuclear fuel repository to provide long-term storage of nuclear waste. They asserted that the challenges associated with constructing this repository are largely political in nature and noted how the U.S. has been debating the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository for over 40 years. Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX) and Mr. Repko emphasized that the storage containers for nuclear waste are “very robust” and are meant to withstand transportation accidents and fires.
  • Nuclear Waste Recycling: Subcommittee Republicans, Dr. Gehin, and Mr. Cohen expressed interest in efforts to recycle nuclear waste. Dr. Gehin mentioned how Idaho National Laboratory and other U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories conduct research on the feasibility of spent nuclear fuel recycling. Dr. Gehin and Mr. Harrell acknowledged however that the nuclear fuel produced from recycling spent nuclear fuel will be more expensive than brand new nuclear fuel. Of note, Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan (R-SC) expressed his intention for the Subcommittee to hold a future hearing on the topic of reprocessing nuclear waste.

Hearing Witnesses:

1. Dr. Jess C. Gehin, Ph.D., Associate Laboratory Director, Nuclear Science and Technology, Idaho National Laboratory
2. Mr. Regis Repko, Senior Vice President, Generation and Transmission Strategy, Duke Energy
3. Mr. Jeremy Harrell, Board of Directors Chair, U.S. Nuclear Industry Council, and Chief Strategy Officer, ClearPath
4. Mr. Armond Cohen, Executive Director, Clean Air Task Force

Member Opening Statements:

Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan (R-SC):

• He expressed interest in developing bipartisan and durable legislation to expand U.S. nuclear energy.
• He mentioned how he had recently joined Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ), and Subcommittee Ranking Member Diana DeGette (D-CO) in soliciting feedback from key nuclear associations and stakeholders to inform potential federal nuclear energy legislation.
  • He indicated that this legislation could help to update nuclear licensing and regulatory activities.
• He also mentioned how he had recently returned from a Congressional Delegation trip to Europe that had visited nuclear energy deployment projects.
  • He noted that while many European countries are expanding nuclear power, he raised concerns that Germany is actively shutting down nuclear power sources.
• He remarked that the Subcommittee must ensure that nuclear energy plays a key role in the U.S.’s energy matrix.
• He called it vital for the U.S. to encourage regulatory certainty for the nuclear energy industry and ensure that its nuclear reactor licensing processes will enable broad deployment of nuclear energy technologies.
  • He commented that these reforms are especially important for advanced nuclear energy technologies.
• He discussed how the U.S. Department of Energy and the NRC play important roles in supporting nuclear innovation.
  • He mentioned how the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories provide “critical” support for developing, demonstrating, and promoting advanced nuclear energy technologies.
  • He also noted how the NRC helps to ensure the public that there are adequate health and safety protections for nuclear operations.
• He remarked that his state of South Carolina is a leader in nuclear energy and indicated that nuclear energy is responsible for between 54 percent and 58 percent of the state’s electricity.
  • He added that nuclear energy is responsible for over 90 percent of the state’s carbon-free electricity.
• He also mentioned how the U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River National Laboratory is located in South Carolina and stated that this National Laboratory supports the U.S.’s nuclear weapons and environmental management missions.
• He further mentioned how South Carolina had experienced the failure of the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station and stated that this project has created perceived risks of uncontrolled cost overrun and project abandonment.
  • He commented that these concerns have limited commitment to new reactor development in the U.S. and asserted that the U.S. could not allow for these concerns to inhibit its deployment of nuclear energy.
• He stated that nuclear energy is “by far” the U.S.’s leading source of carbon-free electricity and one of the most reliable sources of power.
  • He highlighted that the capacity factor of nuclear energy is greater than 90 percent, which is greater than any other power generating source.
• He remarked that U.S. global leadership in nuclear energy technology provides the U.S. with significant geopolitical advantage and leverage.
  • He commented that a robust nuclear energy export market would enable the U.S. to set global nuclear energy norms.
• He raised concerns however that the U.S. nuclear energy industry’s growth has “stagnated” over the previous decade and stated that China and Russia are now doubling their investments in nuclear energy technology.
  • He contended that the U.S. must to modernize its regulatory structure and work to encourage the growth of its domestic nuclear industry.
• He then discussed how U.S. engineers are developing novel nuclear reactor designs that promise less expensive, more efficient, widely deployable, and “walkway safe” technology.
  • He asserted that the U.S. must modernize its licensing structure and establish an advanced fuel supply to bring these technologies online.
• He further stated that the U.S. nuclear fleet is operating at the highest levels of performance and safety in its history and commented that the U.S. should use this experience to inform its future nuclear energy policies.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Diana DeGette (D-CO):

• She remarked that nuclear energy can help support the U.S.’s transition to zero carbon emitting forms of energy.
  • She noted how nuclear energy is responsible for generating nearly 20 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and is responsible for almost half of the U.S.’s carbon-free electricity.
• She stated that nuclear energy can help to reduce the U.S.’s reliance on fossil fuels and support electrification efforts.
  • She asserted that the U.S. will require a diverse mix of energy sources to meet its climate change goals and commented that nuclear energy can be one of these new energy sources.
• She remarked however that nuclear energy should not be considered a panacea and commented that the U.S. must still address spent nuclear fuel issues and its aging nuclear infrastructure.
  • She stated that the U.S.’s failure to develop a long-term and permanent solution for nuclear waste disposal will make it challenging to use nuclear energy.
• She noted how the U.S. has only had one new nuclear power plant come online since she had entered Congress.
  • She indicated that the U.S. had closed and decommissioned many nuclear reactors throughout the U.S. during this period, including her state of Colorado’s only nuclear reactor.
• She stated that advancements in technology had enabled the U.S. nuclear energy industry to maintain its non-carbon emitting electricity generation capability for over three decades.
  • She commented however that impending nuclear power plant closures and the exacerbation of climate change necessitate efforts to maintain the U.S. energy sector’s non-carbon emitting portfolio.
• She mentioned how she had joined with Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), and Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) on soliciting nuclear energy stakeholder input and recommendations for ways to improve the nuclear energy licensing process.
  • She commented that these proposed improvements must not sacrifice the health and safety of Americans.
• She remarked that the U.S. needs to maintain rigorous and science-based regulations for nuclear energy and to provide strict oversight of nuclear energy.
  • She expressed interest in considering potential improvements to the nuclear energy application and licensing process.
• She stated however that the Committee must solicit input from the NRC as part of its efforts to make nuclear energy policy reforms.
  • She requested that the Subcommittee hold an additional hearing that would solicit input on the issue from NRC Commissioners.

Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan (R-SC):

• He indicated his intention to hold a Subcommittee hearing with the NRC sometime during the upcoming summer.

Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

• She remarked that U.S. leadership in nuclear energy is critical to the U.S.’s economic and national security.
  • She asserted that nuclear energy must be part of the U.S.’s energy mix and commented that nuclear energy provides clean, reliable, and affordable energy.
• She mentioned how she had recently returned from a Congressional Delegation trip to Europe and highlighted how Europe is reducing its nuclear power generation capabilities.
• She discussed how Russian President Vladimir Putin is currently “weaponizing” Europe’s reliance on Russian natural gas, which is forcing many European countries to quickly find new energy sources.
  • She lamented how Germany had recently phased out its nuclear power plants and is now facing electricity price spikes and rations.
  • She mentioned how National Public Radio (NPR) has reported that Germany is stocking up on candles to prepare for blackouts.
• She also mentioned how her recent Congressional Delegation trip to Europe had involved a signing ceremony for an agreement between the U.S. and Poland in conjunction with GE-Hitachi’s SMR deployment.
  • She commented that Polish leaders (much like many members of Congress) understand and appreciate the reliable and secure energy that comes from nuclear power.
  • She added that Poland is considering other U.S. nuclear energy technologies, including NuScale Power’s VOYGR reactors.
• She remarked that the U.S. must be the global leader in nuclear energy and commented that U.S. innovation and a predictable regulatory landscape will support this global leadership.
  • She also called on the U.S. to encourage new nuclear energy technologies that support new applications, such as providing power and heat for industrial uses.
• She expressed interest in ensuring the health of the U.S. nuclear fleet, deploying innovative nuclear energy technologies, providing an adequate supply of nuclear fuels and sufficient infrastructure for advanced nuclear reactors, and securing U.S. global leadership in nuclear energy technology.
• She discussed how Congress had enacted the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to encourage the widespread use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes.
  • She commented that this law had supported U.S. global leadership in developing civilian nuclear energy technologies and in setting nuclear energy safety standards.
• She remarked that the U.S. must continue to build on its global nuclear energy leadership to bolster its long-term competitiveness and strategic interests.
• She raised concerns over how China and Russia have announced plans to construct around 66 nuclear power reactors across multiple nations.
  • She added that China and Russia are working together to develop new nuclear energy technologies, which she called concerning.
• She stated that the U.S.’s nuclear fuel infrastructure is weakening and asserted that the U.S. has an “unhealthy” reliance on Russian-sourced nuclear fuels.
  • She commented that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine makes this reliance particularly concerning.
• She expressed optimism however that many European countries (such as Poland) are looking at U.S. nuclear energy technologies.
• She also highlighted how her region of eastern Washington is involved in efforts to deploy new advanced nuclear energy technologies.

Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ):

• He stated that while the U.S. power sector has made significant progress in reducing carbon emissions over the previous two decades (largely due to the growth of renewable energy), he noted that the power sector still accounts for 28 percent of the U.S.’s total carbon pollution.
  • He asserted that decarbonizing power plants is therefore crucial to addressing climate change.
• He remarked that nuclear power plays an important role in producing carbon-free power for the electric grid.
  • He noted how nuclear power had accounted for nearly half of all carbon-free generated power in the U.S. last year.
  • He also noted how nuclear power supplies nearly 90 percent of his state of New Jersey’s carbon-free power.
• He stated that if the U.S. desires to achieve full decarbonization in the power sector and low consumer prices for power, then the U.S. must have reliable carbon-free resources that can sustain output for long periods of time.
  • He commented that nuclear power can satisfy these criteria.
• He commended the NRC’s work to ensure that nuclear power remains safe and secure and asserted that federal regulators have been key in ensuring the safety of the U.S. nuclear energy industry.
• He mentioned how he had recently joined Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan (R-SC), and Subcommittee Ranking Member Diana DeGette (D-CO) in soliciting input and recommendations from nuclear energy stakeholders regarding the NRC’s licensing and regulatory process.
  • He expressed interest in developing policies to make this process more efficient and to bolster the safety and security of the U.S. nuclear fleet.
• He then discussed how the Biden administration and Congressional Democrats have made several investments in recent years in the U.S. nuclear power industry.
  • He mentioned how the IIJA authorizes the Civil Nuclear Credit Program, which is a $6 billion fund at the U.S. Department of Energy that supports the continued operation of nuclear facilities.
  • He also mentioned how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 had created a tax credit for zero emission nuclear power and had invested $700 million to support next generation nuclear fuel.
• He stated that the Committee should work to build upon the aforementioned laws and expressed his appreciation for the bipartisan nature of the current hearing.

Witness Opening Statements:

Dr. Jess C. Gehin, Ph.D. (Idaho National Laboratory):

• He remarked that the Subcommittee should leverage the U.S.’s existing nuclear industry to ensure domestic energy security.
• He stated that the U.S.’s current fleet of 92 operating nuclear reactors provide a “tremendous resource” and called it key for the U.S. to ensure that these reactors continue to provide clean and reliable power.
  • He asserted that the U.S. must ensure that these reactors are not subject to economic variations that can lead them to close prematurely.
  • He also asserted that the U.S. must extend the operating lifespans of these reactors to maximize the value and clean energy from these investments.
• He noted how nuclear reactors require a reliable supply of uranium and enrichment services and highlighted how the U.S. currently imports 90 percent of the uranium needed for its nuclear reactor fleet.
  • He indicated that some of these uranium imports come from Russia.
• He remarked that the U.S. and its close allies will need to establish an expanded uranium enrichment capability to eliminate the U.S.’s dependence on Russian uranium imports.
• He then discussed how the U.S. Department of Energy’s recent report titled “Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Advanced Nuclear” states that the U.S.’s domestic nuclear capacity has the potential to triple by 2050 and is key to meeting the U.S.’s clean energy goals.
  • He asserted that the U.S. must aggressively develop, demonstrate, and deploy nuclear reactors to meet these goals.
• He remarked that the U.S. must support near-term reactor demonstration projects and mentioned how Idaho National Laboratory is planning to startup its Microreactor Applications Research Validation and EvaLuation (MARVEL) microreactor by the end of 2024.
  • He commented that this small reactor project will give the U.S. experience in quickly deploying nuclear reactors.
• He mentioned that the U.S. will deploy additional reactor projects, including the carbon-free SMR being developed by the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS), the TerraPower Natrium reactor in Wyoming, and X-energy Xe-100 reactors on the Gulf Coast.
• He also stated that the U.S. must ensure that it has a domestic supply of HALEU.
  • He explained that HALEU is more enriched than the uranium used in the U.S.’s current nuclear fleet and noted that the U.S. does not currently produce this uranium domestically.
• He contended that the U.S. will need to significantly expand its uranium supply and enrichment capabilities to meet its ambitious nuclear generation goals.
• He then remarked that the U.S. should encourage the deployment of nuclear energy so that it can fairly compete with other forms of energy generation.
  • He mentioned how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 had provided technology-neutral tax credits that will stimulate early nuclear energy deployments.
  • He also predicted that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s tax credits will expand access to financing for nuclear energy projects, which will support deployment efforts.
• He then discussed how the U.S. had created the nuclear industry and noted how most nuclear reactors around the world are based on U.S. technology.
  • He commented that the U.S.’s leadership within the nuclear energy space has thus significantly influenced global nuclear safety and non-proliferation standards.
• He stated however that the U.S. nuclear energy industry’s stagnancy has enabled other countries (including China and Russia) to challenge the U.S.’s leadership within the global nuclear energy space.
• He remarked that the aforementioned nuclear reactor demonstration projects and planned deployments of advanced nuclear energy technologies provide the U.S. with an opportunity to reestablish its global leadership in nuclear energy.
  • He called the recent announcements of international deployments of U.S. nuclear energy technology (including the recent agreement between the U.S. and Poland) encouraging.
  • He asserted that the U.S. should increase its support for efforts to export U.S. nuclear energy technologies internationally.
• He then stated that while the U.S. benefits from having the NRC as its nuclear energy regulator, he asserted that new nuclear reactor developers often face challenges moving through the NRC licensing process.
• He recommended several reforms to the NRC licensing process, including reviewing the requirements for mandatory hearings, expediting environmental reviews, reforming the rules of NRC bodies, and modifying NRC fee structures.
• He then remarked that the U.S. must address its near-term and long-term spent fuel management responsibilities.
  • He noted how Congress has directed the U.S. Department of Energy to employ a consent-based siting approach for spent nuclear fuel interim storage.
• He stated however that the U.S. could not construct sufficient nuclear fuel interim capacity without revising the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
• He further highlighted how spent nuclear fuel recycling could help to address the U.S.’s nuclear waste issues.
  • He mentioned how Idaho National Laboratory and other U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories conduct research on the feasibility of spent nuclear fuel recycling.

Mr. Regis Repko (Duke Energy):

• He discussed how his company, Duke Energy, is one of the U.S.’s largest energy holding companies and noted how Duke Energy serves 8.2 million electric customers and 1.6 million natural gas customers.
  • He testified that Duke Energy holds the largest regulated nuclear fleet in the U.S.
• He stated that Duke Energy plans to add “unprecedented” numbers of solar and wind energy sources to the energy grid as it works to retire its aging coal fleet.
• He remarked however that the U.S. must maintain firm and dispatchable energy resources, such as nuclear energy and natural gas, to support renewable energy resources.
  • He commented that the U.S. could not jeopardize energy reliability or affordability as it works to transition toward cleaner energy sources.
• He called Duke Energy’s nuclear generation capability a “vital” part of the company’s energy portfolio and indicated that the company’s nuclear fleet provides over 80 percent of the company’s carbon-free energy.
  • He contended that the U.S. could not achieve its carbon emissions reduction goals without nuclear power.
  • He highlighted how Duke Energy’s 11 nuclear power units provide around 50 percent of the electricity in the Carolinas and serve as economic drivers for local communities.
• He remarked that the U.S. should work to foster certainty around nuclear energy licensing, fuel, and financing. 
• He stated that the U.S. must undertake nuclear energy licensing reforms to address its existing nuclear fleet and advanced nuclear reactor designs.
  • He testified that Duke Energy is closely monitoring the NRC’s rulemaking on Generic Environmental Impact Statement guidance and indicated that Duke Energy will rely on this guidance for future licensing applications for its existing fleet.
  • He commented that Congressional oversight over this area would be appreciated.
• He highlighted how Duke Energy intends to build 8 gigawatts of new nuclear generation so that it can meet its energy goals.
  • He mentioned how Duke Energy is working with industry groups, reactor technology companies, and leading research universities to study the deployment of advanced nuclear energy technology.
• He reiterated the importance of providing the nuclear energy industry with regulatory clarity and expressed Duke Energy’s interest in working with other nuclear industry stakeholders on reforms to the NRC’s 10 CFR Part 53 licensing process.
• He also discussed how Russia is currently the world’s supplier of nuclear fuel and warned that there currently does not exist enough non-Russian nuclear fuel production capacity to satisfy long-term nuclear fuel demand.
  • He commented that the U.S. must do more to address these nuclear fuel supply challenges.
• He then thanked Congress for funding the ARDP and stated that this Program supports the design and deployment of advanced nuclear reactors.
  • He also thanked Congress for providing production tax credits for nuclear power plants as part of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and commented that these tax credits will result in lower electricity costs for consumers.
• He remarked that the federal government has the opportunity to accelerate the deployment of new nuclear reactor designs through reducing the risks associated with deploying novel nuclear energy projects.
  • He stated that this can be accomplished through providing federal insurance if nuclear energy projects were to exceed cost caps.
  • He anticipated that this support would only be necessary for the first several deployments of novel nuclear energy projects.

Mr. Armond Cohen (Clean Air Task Force):

• He expressed appreciation for the broad support for nuclear energy as a means for addressing climate change and energy security concerns.
• He asserted however that the U.S. is not adopting nuclear energy sources at a sufficient scale or pace to meaningfully address climate change.
  • He stated that nuclear energy will need to supply around 100 gigawatts of power per year to meaningfully address climate change and indicated that nuclear energy is currently supplying about 10 gigawatts of power per year.
• He contended that the U.S. needs to pursue “radical” reforms to the nuclear energy sector, which will involve reforms of the sector’s business model, regulations, financing system, and international institutions.
  • He noted how the U.S. is only responsible for 15 percent of global energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions.
• He asserted that U.S. will only be able to address climate change through nuclear energy if it exports its nuclear energy technologies to other countries.
  • He added that these technologies must also be readily deployable to impact climate change.
• He remarked that the U.S. will need to develop more commoditized and standardized nuclear energy options if it seeks to dramatically increase nuclear energy production capabilities.
• He also stated that the U.S. will need to increase the speed at which it can deploy new nuclear power generating units.
  • He further asserted that these units must be financeable on near commercial terms and suitable for deployment within the developing world.
• He contended that the U.S. will need some form of public-private collaboration to build a commoditized ecosystem for nuclear reactors.
• He also called for policies that will drive large orders of nuclear reactors so that there can occur repeated deployments of standardized nuclear reactor designs.
  • He commented that these repeated deployments will be key to driving down the cost of nuclear reactors.
• He stated that the U.S. needs a comprehensive program to drive down nuclear capital expenditure costs below $4,000 per kilowatt.
  • He indicated that current nuclear power units have capital expenditure costs of $12,000 per kilowatt and called these costs unworkable.
• He also discussed the need for global initiatives to support the deployment of nuclear energy technology projects and commented that a global strategy will be necessary given the global scale of climate change.
  • He specifically recommended the establishment of an international bank for nuclear infrastructure, an international licensing authority that would enable nuclear energy project licenses to transfer across regions, and a mechanism for supporting the adoption of these technologies.
• He then called for the U.S. to adopt a regulatory “sandbox” for licensing innovative nuclear energy projects.
• He also remarked that the U.S. needs to review its regulatory approach toward nuclear energy and specifically called on the U.S. to consider low dose radiation standards.
  • He noted how the U.S. Department of Energy had been provided money to address low dose radiation standards and lamented that the Department has not moved forward on these standards.
• He lastly stated that the U.S. will need to ensure socially and environmentally responsible mining practices if it seeks to significantly scale up its nuclear energy power capabilities.

Mr. Jeremy Harrell (U.S. Nuclear Industry Council, ClearPath):

• He remarked that U.S. nuclear energy can support a clean and secure future.
  • He noted how global energy markets are demanding a carbon-free, reliable, and secure energy source and commented that the U.S. nuclear supply chain can satisfy these demands.
• He stated that this increasing demand for nuclear energy has coincided with “unprecedented” private sector momentum.
  • He highlighted how American electricity providers are calling for 90 gigawatts of new nuclear power by 2050, which would constitute a doubling of current nuclear power capacity.
  • He also mentioned how the NRC anticipates at least 13 applications for new advanced nuclear reactors by 2027.
  • He further noted how at least eight U.S. nuclear energy companies have announced international partnerships in more than ten countries.
• He thanked Congress (and the Committee) for its efforts to promote nuclear energy through the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA), the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act of 2017 (NEICA), and the Energy Act of 2020.
  • He commented that the resulting tax incentives, NRC reforms, and public-private partnerships (such as the ARDP) are causing more investors and customers to become interested in nuclear energy.
  • He noted how these new customers include chemical facilities, steel producers, and data centers.
• He proposed three areas that the Committee could pursue to accelerate the U.S.’s expansion of nuclear energy. 
  • He first proposed that the U.S. work to secure its nuclear supply chain and end global reliance on Russia for nuclear fuels.
  • He then proposed that the U.S. enhance its nuclear offerings to expand the foreign market for U.S. nuclear products.
  • He lastly proposed that the U.S improve its domestic regulatory predictability for nuclear energy.
• He remarked that the U.S. remains too reliant on Russian nuclear materials and noted how about 95 percent of uranium used in the U.S. is imported.
  • He indicated that about 50 percent of this imported uranium comes from Russia and Kazakhstan.
  • He also noted how Russia is the only source of large volumes of HALEU (which is key for many advanced nuclear designs) and how Russia supplies more than 20 percent of the low enriched uranium needed for the U.S.’s current nuclear fleet.
• He asserted that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has underscored the need for the U.S. and its allies to end thier reliance on Russian nuclear materials.
• He called on the Biden administration to immediately launch the Advanced Nuclear Fuel Availability Program to enable a private industry-led HALEU supply.
  • He indicated that this Program has already been authorized.
• He then remarked that the U.S. must enhance its offerings for American nuclear energy technology abroad and stated that demand for this technology from Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia has never been greater. 
  • He commented that countries want affordable, clean, reliable, and secure energy and lamented how Russia and China are seeking to satisfy these demands.
• He stated that while new policies (such as the International Nuclear Energy Act) send a “strong signal” that the U.S. will reestablish itself as a leader in the global nuclear energy marketplace, he asserted that the U.S. must do more in this area.
  • He noted that while the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) had removed its restrictions on supporting nuclear power projects in 2020, he lamented that the DFC has been slow to promote American nuclear energy technologies.
  • He also noted that the Export–Import Bank of the U.S.’s (EXIM Bank) China Transformational Exports Program (CTEP) provides financial support for wind and solar energy and does not provide financial support for nuclear energy.
• He called the recent deal to have the U.S. support roughly 20 SMRs in Poland with $4 billion in loans a “great first step” and asserted that the U.S. must take more actions across the federal government to promote nuclear energy globally.
• He then remarked that the U.S. must work diligently to modernize its nuclear energy regulations.
  • He commented that the NRC must be structured and incentivized to license the next generation of new nuclear reactors.
• He stated that while the NRC is making commendable efforts to modernize, attract new talent, and further its technical understanding of new nuclear energy technologies, he noted that the NRC acknowledges that it will continue to struggle to review new applications.
  • He commented that these struggles are understandable given the unprecedented number of applications over the next five years.
• He provided three recommendations for the NRC for handling this new application demand.
  • He first recommended that the NRC realign its processes for new technologies around their safety benefits and new applications (such as clean heat and disaster relief).
  • He then recommended that the NRC increase its review efficiency.
  • He lastly recommended that the NRC be proactive in requesting support from Congress and supporting the use of nuclear energy as part of the U.S.’s clean energy efforts.
• He further expressed the U.S. Nuclear Industry Council’s appreciation for the U.S. House of Representatives’s advancement of the Lower Energy Costs Act and expressed support for bipartisan permitting reform efforts.

Congressional Question Period:

Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan (R-SC):

• Chairman Duncan expressed optimism regarding the global partnerships that the U.S. can pursue to safely deploy civilian nuclear energy projects. He asserted that the U.S. must support its domestic nuclear industry to foster these international partnerships. He then noted how Duke Energy is responsible for providing affordable and reliable energy to many Americans (including many of his constituents). He asked Mr. Repko to discuss what will be needed for energy utilities to place orders for new nuclear reactors.
  • Ms. Repko remarked that Duke Energy seeks certainty around nuclear energy licensing, fuel availability, and finances. He mentioned how Duke Energy has proposed nuclear energy projects to its North Carolina regulators and testified that these regulators are very supportive of these proposed projects. He indicated that these North Carolina regulators have approved Duke Energy to begin incurring costs around early site development for these new nuclear energy projects. He remarked however that many energy utilities only plan to pursue new nuclear energy projects only after they have seen other energy utilities receive regulatory approval for their projects. He stated that the U.S. Department of Energy’s “Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Advanced Nuclear” report identifies several programs and approaches that could make nuclear energy projects more cost competitive. He indicated that these programs and approaches could involve direct grants, cost sharing support for innovative projects, and federal insurance support. He also predicted that state regulators would be receptive to these new nuclear energy projects.
• Chairman Duncan noted how the U.S. Department of Energy’s “Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Advanced Nuclear” report discusses the potential use of SMRs and advanced nuclear reactors. He called advanced nuclear reactors “critical” for the future of energy within the U.S. He asserted that the U.S. must modernize its regulatory framework for nuclear energy. He mentioned how the NRC has begun to prepare to receive and review the initial advanced nuclear reactor applications. He asked Mr. Harrell to address how the NRC will need to rethink their licensing and oversight roles to accommodate these new technologies.
  • Mr. Harrell remarked that Congress will need to pressure the NRC to rethink their licensing and oversight roles to accommodate these new technologies. He discussed how advanced nuclear reactors tend to be more flexible and smaller than traditional gigawatt-scale reactors. He also noted how advanced nuclear reactors can be paired to provide heat to industrial facilities. He remarked that the NRC needs to consider these features as part of its regulatory approach toward advanced nuclear reactors. He stated that advanced nuclear reactors and SMRs can use smaller security and emergency preparedness zones than traditional gigawatt-scale nuclear reactors. He commented that these smaller zones could reduce costs without sacrificing safety or security. He also remarked that the NRC will need to streamline the deployment of more nuclear reactors because these SMRs and advanced nuclear reactors will entail higher numbers of smaller reactors. He further asserted that the U.S. will need to be able to more quickly site these SMRs and advanced nuclear reactors in order for these technologies to be scaled abroad. He concluded that the NRC must accommodate the attributes of new nuclear energy technologies when licensing and overseeing these technologies. 
• Chairman Duncan asked Dr. Gehin to discuss the regulatory costs that a new nuclear reactor applicant will face when going through the licensing process at the NRC.
  • Dr. Gehin discussed how nuclear reactor applicants must typically undergo a pre-licensing phase that involves topical submissions and indicated that applicants have fees associated with this process. He also stated that nuclear reactor designs must be sufficient and mature to undergo the NRC licensing process. He commented that these design requirements make it more expensive to develop new nuclear reactors.
• Chairman Duncan interjected to ask Dr. Gehin to estimate how much of a new nuclear reactor project’s total costs are attributable to regulatory costs, application fees, and compliance costs. He also asked Dr. Gehin to estimate how much of a new nuclear reactor project’s total costs are attributable to construction costs.
  • Dr. Gehin noted that large nuclear power plants cost more money, which makes their regulatory costs, application fees, and compliance costs a relatively small part of their total costs. He stated however that new nuclear reactor projects will have higher initial regulatory costs, application fees, and compliance costs. He commented that these costs will fall after the new nuclear reactor projects receive approval. He stated that these initial regulatory costs, application fees, and compliance costs can be “quite high” and serve as a barrier to deployment. He suggested that Congress consider eliminating costs for pre-licensing applications and commented that this reform would make it easier for SMRs to enter the regulatory process.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Diana DeGette (D-CO):

• Ranking Member DeGette mentioned how the leadership of both the Full Committee and Subcommittee had sent a letter to the U.S. Nuclear Industry Council the previous week requesting recommendations for improving the U.S. nuclear energy regulatory process. She indicated that while this letter had been directed to the U.S. Nuclear Industry Council, she expressed her desire for the Committee to receive comments and recommendations on the topic from all stakeholders. She then asked Mr. Repko and Mr. Harrell to indicate whether there exist unnecessary nuclear regulatory approval processes that could be streamlined without sacrificing safety standards that are needed to protect public health and safety.
  • Mr. Repko answered affirmatively.
  • Mr. Harrell answered affirmatively.
• Ranking Member DeGette requested that the witnesses and stakeholders submit specific recommendations for streamlining nuclear regulatory approval processes. She then noted how the Committee has been considering nuclear waste management issues throughout her entire tenure on the Committee. She stated that the current lack of regulatory clarity makes it difficult for the nuclear industry to make business decisions. She asserted that the certification of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository is based on politics (rather than on science). She expressed interest in working to develop regulatory certainty for nuclear waste and commented that this certainty is needed for public health and safety reasons. She noted how U.S. Assistant Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Energy Kathryn Huff has indicated that the U.S. only has 76 interim storage sites for nuclear waste. She called this nuclear waste storage situation untenable if the U.S. seeks to include nuclear energy in its energy portfolio. She asked Mr. Harrell to indicate whether the U.S.’s lack of a comprehensive strategy for spent nuclear fuel storage has impacted the U.S. Nuclear Industry Council’s members and the broader U.S. nuclear energy industry.
  • Mr. Harrell answered affirmatively and stated that addressing spent nuclear fuel storage can support the growth of the U.S. nuclear energy industry.
• Ranking Member DeGette also asked Mr. Repko to indicate whether the U.S.’s lack of a comprehensive strategy for spent nuclear fuel storage has impacted Duke Energy.
  • Mr. Repko answered affirmatively. He testified that Duke Energy has operational resources to store spent nuclear fuel onsite.
• Ranking Member DeGette further asked Dr. Gehin to address the effects of the U.S.’s lack of a comprehensive strategy for spent nuclear fuel storage.
  • Dr. Gehin remarked that the U.S. can address the scientific issues associated with spent nuclear fuel storage and stated that the policy issues surrounding this topic need to be resolved. He also mentioned how the U.S. Department of Energy is currently working on consent-based siting to provide consolidated interim storage for spent nuclear fuel.
• Ranking Member DeGette interjected to comment that the U.S. Department of Energy’s participation in efforts to address spent nuclear fuel storage will be “critical.” She lastly asked Mr. Cohen to comment on how the U.S. should address spent nuclear fuel storage.
  • Mr. Cohen stated that the issue of nuclear waste creates public perception challenges for the U.S. nuclear energy adoption efforts. He asserted however that the issue of nuclear waste is very manageable and highlighted how other countries (including Sweden and Finland) are addressing this issue. He stated that a consent-based siting approach for nuclear waste storage will help the U.S. to proceed on nuclear energy deployment efforts.
• Ranking Member DeGette applauded Sweden’s approach to spent nuclear fuel storage.

Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan (R-SC):

• Chairman Duncan expressed his intention for the Subcommittee to hold a future hearing on the topic of reprocessing nuclear waste.

Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

• Chairman McMorris Rodgers discussed the need for the U.S. to maintain strong and secure supply chains for nuclear fuels. She asserted that the U.S. must confront current nuclear fuel security vulnerabilities. She attributed these vulnerabilities to “outdated” policies that have caused the U.S.’s nuclear fuel infrastructure to atrophy. She commented that Russia’s recent invasion of Ukraine has exposed the U.S.’s overreliance on Russia for its nuclear fuels. She noted how the Energy Act of 2020 takes actions to limit the U.S.’s importation of Russian nuclear fuels and indicated that this law seeks to reduce these imports to 15 percent of U.S. nuclear fuel supplies by the end of the decade. She contended that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine underscores the need for the U.S. to more aggressively reduce its dependence on Russian nuclear fuel sources. She asked Mr. Harrell and Mr. Repko to discuss the importance of having a clear set date for when the U.S. nuclear energy will no longer be able to rely upon Russian-sourced low-enriched uranium.
  • Mr. Harrell remarked that having a clear set date for when the U.S. will no longer be reliant on Russian-sourced low-enriched uranium will support private investments in uranium enrichment capabilities both within the U.S. and within allied countries. He mentioned how the Group of Seven (G7) had recently called for reducing the reliance of their member countries on Russian nuclear fuels.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers asked Mr. Harrell to elaborate on how having a clear set date for when the U.S. nuclear energy will no longer be able to rely upon Russian-sourced low-enriched uranium will impact nuclear energy supply contracts and investments.
  • Mr. Harrell stated that Mr. Repko is better-suited to answer that question given how Duke Energy is an operator of the U.S.’s existing nuclear fleet.
  • Mr. Repko remarked that the U.S.’s reliance on Russian nuclear fuel constitutes a significant risk. He testified that Duke Energy produces around 5 percent of its nuclear fuel domestically and plans to grow this amount to 14 percent next year. He also testified that Duke Energy converts about 50 percent of its nuclear fuel domestically due to limitations. He indicated however that all of Duke Energy’s fabrication is domestic. He stated that current domestic capacity around nuclear fuel production and conversion is limited. He asserted that the U.S. must take immediate action on permitting and construction so that it can meet its 2028 goal to reduce its reliance on Russian nuclear fuel sources.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers then mentioned how European countries are interested in deploying both large conventional nuclear reactors and advanced SMRs. She asked Dr. Gehin to discuss the importance of licensing and deploying advanced nuclear energy technologies domestically for ensuring the continued leadership of U.S. nuclear energy technology. She also asked Dr. Gehin to discuss how the licensing and deployment of advanced nuclear reactors domestically will strengthen the U.S.’s ability to compete globally against Russia and China within the nuclear energy space.
  • Dr. Gehin remarked that constructing advanced nuclear energy technologies domestically demonstrates U.S. trust and confidence in the technologies. He mentioned how Romania, Ghana, and other countries interested in pursuing new nuclear energy technologies view NuScale Power’s announced carbon-free nuclear power project in Idaho as a model. He stated that there are other innovative nuclear reactor demonstration projects within the U.S. that will further signal the strength of U.S. nuclear energy technology abroad. He also remarked that the licensing and deployment of advanced nuclear reactors domestically will support the development of domestic supply chains, talent, and expertise that can support international nuclear deployments.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers further asked. Dr. Gehin to discuss the current timelines for advanced nuclear reactor demonstration projects under development and to address how an improved nuclear energy regulatory process could expedite these timelines.
  • Dr. Gehin estimated that certain smaller microreactors will be deployed within the next three to five years and that the larger SMRs will be deployed between 2027 and 2030. He noted that these nuclear reactor projects will mostly be licensed under current nuclear energy regulatory processes. He commented that it will be difficult for policymakers to impact the licensing schedules for these projects. He stated however that policymakers should work to improve nuclear energy licensing to support the expected growth in nuclear energy project deployment in the 2030s.

Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ):

• Ranking Member Pallone discussed the U.S.’s need for carbon-free generation resources that can sustain output for long periods of time. He asked Mr. Cohen to elaborate on the importance of long duration power generation assets and to address why these assets are important to make the decarbonization of the U.S. power sector more affordable for consumers.
  • Mr. Cohen commented that while wind and solar energy are great power generation resources, he noted how the power generation output of these resources will fluctuate on both daily and seasonal bases. He indicated that these output fluctuations can be as great as 50 percent between peak and off-peak months. He noted that while battery storage could be used to address daily fluctuations in power generation output, he commented that battery storage cannot be used to address seasonal fluctuations in power generation output. He remarked that there will therefore need to exist a more stable baseload source of energy (which can be nuclear energy or something else) to offset the variable power generation output of wind and solar energy sources.
• Ranking Member Pallone then mentioned how he had recently joined Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan (R-SC), and Subcommittee Ranking Member Diana DeGette (D-CO) in sending a letter to solicit comments and recommendations on the NRC’s licensing and regulatory process. He acknowledged that while the witnesses have not had sufficient time to develop formal responses to this letter, he expressed interest in receiving initial feedback on the letter. He asked Mr. Cohen to provide some examples of how the U.S. could streamline the nuclear energy licensing process without jeopardizing public health and safety.
  • Mr. Cohen discussed how other countries, including South Korea, Canada, and the United Kingdom (UK), require nuclear energy project applicants to present a case as to why their projects are safe (rather than strictly adhere to a prescriptive set of criteria). He suggested that the NRC identify essential metrics for measuring safety and then permit nuclear energy project applicants to explain how their projects will satisfy these metrics. He commented that many of the NRC’s current safety rules do not actually address the safety of nuclear power plants. He indicated that his written testimony and his organization’s comments to the NRC include more details regarding this approach.
• Ranking Member Pallone then noted how the IIJA and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 had included grants and tax credits to support the U.S.’s existing nuclear fleet and the development of next generation nuclear fuels. He asked Mr. Cohen to discuss the impacts of these policies and to identify areas where there might exist additional federal funding needs.
  • Mr. Cohen remarked that making the U.S. government a large purchaser of new nuclear power reactors could help to drive down the costs of producing these reactors. He suggested that the DoD could become a purchaser of these new nuclear power reactors. He also stated that the U.S. could provide some form of insurance against market risk for nuclear power projects. He mentioned how the UK had employed this approach to bring down the costs of offshore wind energy facilities. He further stated that the U.S. should establish a program that would identify cost drivers for nuclear reactors and potential innovations that could address these cost drivers.

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX):

• Rep. Burgess first highlighted how the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant is located near his Congressional District and called this nuclear power plant “very impressive.” He then expressed interest in Mr. Cohen’s proposal to have the NRC’s regulations evolve to reflect the actual safety performance of nuclear power plants.
  • Mr. Cohen noted how the U.S. has many new advanced nuclear reactor designs that are currently being introduced. He stated that the NRC should not presume that these new advanced nuclear reactor designs will be safe because previous light-water reactors have proven to be safe. He remarked however that the U.S. could adopt a more outcomes-based regulatory process and commented that this process would be much simpler. He stated that the NRC could set boundary metrics and then engage with applicants on the best way to meet safety objectives.
• Rep. Burgess remarked that the NRC should use the lessons learned from previous nuclear energy deployments to inform its regulatory approach. He highlighted how the U.S. has a long history of using a nuclear navy and a strong nuclear safety record.
  • Mr. Cohen expressed agreement with Rep. Burgess’s comments. He noted how his written testimony recommends that the NRC evolve its rules to account for new innovations. He also mentioned how his written testimony recommends a “license by testing” approach, which would entail having the regulator on site to look at technologies being built or being dispatched in real time. He commented that this “license by testing” approach would expedite the regulatory approval process for novel nuclear energy technologies.
• Rep. Burgess asked Mr. Cohen to indicate whether it is possible for the NRC to provide real time oversight of nuclear energy technologies being tested.
  • Mr. Cohen answered affirmatively. He stated that the U.S. government had provided more real time oversight of nuclear energy technologies being developed during the initial years of the U.S. nuclear energy program. He remarked that his proposal would be different in that it would have the regulator consider the prospects for a nuclear energy technology under development to be commercialized. He indicated that the regulator would assess both the effectiveness and the safety of the nuclear energy technology under development.
  • Dr. Gehin mentioned how the Idaho National Laboratory had tested 52 reactors over a 25-year period. He noted that many of these tests had been to support the light-water reactor fleet. He stated that the Idaho National Laboratory could perform tests on new nuclear energy technologies on its site.
• Rep. Burgess commented that the NRC should engage in a continuous learning and updating exercise to inform its regulatory approach. He then mentioned how the Committee had been involved in developing the Energy Policy Act of 2005. He noted how this law had provided funding to support the expansion of nuclear reactors. He commented however that the subsequent introduction of inexpensive natural gas had reduced the financial attractiveness of nuclear energy expansion efforts. He asked Mr. Repko to indicate whether Congress should consider efforts to promote the expansion of nuclear energy.
  • Mr. Repko answered affirmatively. He noted how the U.S. will need to deploy 8 gigawatts of new nuclear energy to meet current clean energy goals. He stated that the U.S. could mandate or set new goals for nuclear energy adoption.
• Rep. Burgess asked Mr. Repko to indicate whether federal nuclear energy licenses still exist if the license recipients do not build the projects authorized under the license.
  • Mr. Repko indicated that while these licenses can be maintained as construction licenses, he stated that these licenses generally expire.

Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA):

• Rep. Matsui remarked that nuclear energy can be a clean energy source that can decarbonize the U.S.’s power grid. She stated however that the U.S. cannot construct a new fleet of advanced nuclear reactors without first addressing its spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive materials. She highlighted how 88,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel is currently stranded at reactor sites around the U.S., including at the decommissioned Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station in her Congressional District. She mentioned how she had led a letter to Congressional appropriators that supported the U.S. Department of Energy’s interim storage program. She also mentioned how she had introduced the Storage and Transportation of Residual and Excess (STORE) Nuclear Fuel Act to address the issue. She asserted that the U.S. must address its current spent nuclear fuel, especially if it seeks to build more nuclear power plants. She noted how the most recent Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF) audit report had found that the temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel at decommissioned nuclear reactor sites has already cost taxpayers $10.1 billion. She added that this audit report had found that the remaining liabilities associated with this spent nuclear fuel storage will total $31 billion. She asked Mr. Repko to indicate how much it costs Duke Energy to store spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive material from its operating and decommissioned power plants.
  • Mr. Repko testified that Duke Energy has received $780 million since 1995 from the U.S. Department of Energy as a result of the U.S. government’s failure to fulfill its spent nuclear fuel storage obligations.
• Rep. Matsui then discussed how nuclear power has faced strong public opposition for numerous reasons and noted how this opposition has caused nuclear reactor plant to close. She asked Mr. Harrell to indicate whether public opposition to nuclear energy could derail the U.S.’s efforts to deploy new nuclear energy projects.
  • Mr. Harrell remarked that the problem of spent nuclear fuel is very solvable. He stated that the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel strategy will likely involve consolidated storage at a single or multiple nuclear fuel repositories. He also noted how some advanced nuclear reactors burn existing spent nuclear fuel and commented that these reactors can help to address the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel. He also recommended that the U.S. explore the possibility of recycling spent nuclear fuel. He noted how 95 percent of the energy potential of nuclear products is not being used and suggested that existing spent fuel stockpiles could be used proactively to improve fuel security.
• Rep. Matsui stated that advanced nuclear reactor designs and SMRs can address many of the challenges facing the U.S.’s nuclear fleet. She noted however that these new reactor designs will continue to produce hazardous waste. She asked Dr. Gehin to explain how spent fuel and other radioactive waste products produced by advanced nuclear reactors will differ from the spent fuel and radioactive products produced by existing nuclear reactors.
  • Dr. Gehin mentioned how advanced nuclear reactors generally use HALEU, which retains more residual enriched uranium during the discharge process. He also noted that the fuels for advanced nuclear reactors will come in different forms than traditional ceramic pellets. He indicated that the fuel for advanced nuclear reactors may be ceramic-coated particles or metallic. He further noted how the geometries of the fuels for advanced nuclear reactors may significantly differ from traditional nuclear fuels.

Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH):

• Rep. Latta raised concerns that the U.S. has become over reliant on Russia for its nuclear fuel. He noted how over 90 percent of the uranium used in U.S. nuclear reactors comes from foreign countries, including Russia. He asked Mr. Harrell to project what will happen if the U.S. fails to address its reliance on foreign nuclear fuel sources (including Russia and Russia-aligned countries).
  • Mr. Harrell remarked that investments in the domestic nuclear supply chain could lead to commercial technologies that improve the affordability and reliability of the U.S.’s energy system. He also stated that these technologies can support the U.S.’s global competition with Russia and China. He asserted that the U.S.’s failure to bolster its domestic nuclear supply chain will therefore threaten both U.S. and global energy security. He commented that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine further demonstrates the threats associated with the U.S.’s overreliance on hostile foreign countries for nuclear fuel sources.
• Rep. Latta asked Mr. Harrell to identify impediments to U.S. investments in its domestic nuclear supply chain.
  • Mr. Harrell remarked that the U.S. must make long-term investments in its domestic nuclear supply chain. He stated that the U.S. must ensure that it can mine, produce, and enrich nuclear fuel resources either domestically or in allied countries. He also remarked that regulatory barriers could impede the U.S.’s development of its domestic nuclear supply chain. He called on the U.S. to modernize the NRC and expressed concerns that novel technologies might not be able to move through the NRC’s approval process.
• Rep. Latta mentioned how he had introduced the Nuclear Fuel Security Act, which would establish the Nuclear Fuel Security Program to increase the U.S.’s low-enriched uranium and HAELU supplies. He also indicated that this legislation would expand the American Assured Fuel Supply Program to ensure the continued availability of domestically produced, converted, and enriched uranium. He further indicated that this legislation would establish the HALEU for Advanced Nuclear Reactor Demonstration Projects Program. He asked Mr. Harrell to discuss the need for Congress to pass the Nuclear Fuel Security Act. He asserted that this legislation is necessary to encourage the U.S. nuclear industry to build up its domestic nuclear fuel capacity in a timely manner.
  • Mr. Harrell called the Nuclear Fuel Security Act an “urgent priority” for Congress. He noted how 13 new nuclear reactor companies are set to make proposals to the NRC by 2027. He contended that the U.S. must immediately increase its domestic nuclear fuel enrichment capacity and domestic HALEU production capacity so that it has sufficient time to license, construct, and supply fuel to new nuclear reactors. He warned that the U.S.’s failures to make investments in its domestic nuclear fuel capabilities could prevent the deployment of future nuclear reactors. He commented that this situation would be “catastrophic” for the U.S.’s security and economic interests, as well as for its emissions reduction goals.
• Rep. Latta lastly asked Mr. Repko to discuss why Duke Energy needs certainty in their fuel sourcing to meet their carbon emissions reduction goals and to satisfy the needs of their customers.
  • Mr. Repko called nuclear fuel certainty “absolutely critical” for Duke Energy. He mentioned how Duke Energy plans to increase its power generation capabilities by 8 gigawatts, which would entail the deployment of over 20 new SMRs. He stated that a sustained supply of nuclear fuel will be needed to support these operations.

Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY):

• Rep. Tonko remarked that nuclear energy is an important component of the U.S.’s energy portfolio and emphasized that nuclear energy is a zero-emission resource. He commented that it would be more difficult and more expensive for the U.S. to achieve an electricity system with net-zero emissions without nuclear energy. He asked Mr. Cohen to address how nuclear energy can reduce system-wide costs, even if individual nuclear energy projects appear expensive at the present time.
  • Mr. Cohen remarked that nuclear energy will reduce the costs of constructing a zero-carbon emissions electricity system through not requiring a massive overbuild of renewable energy facilities. He explained that an energy system that relied exclusively upon wind and solar energy would need to build enough wind and solar energy facilities to satisfy energy demands during peak times. He stated that baseload nuclear energy will reduce the need to overbuild renewable energy facilities and associated energy storage capabilities, which will lead to cost savings.
• Rep. Tonko also asked Mr. Cohen to discuss why the U.S. should work to mass produce and deploy advanced nuclear reactors.
  • Mr. Cohen remarked that the U.S.’s failure to mass produce advanced nuclear reactors will result in the continued construction of one-off nuclear facilities, which will have very high costs. He noted however that no country has ever mass produced advanced nuclear reactors and acknowledged that such mass production will therefore be difficult. He stated that the U.S. will need to consider ways to incentivize mass production within the nuclear energy facility context. He suggested that federal incentives could support this effort through encouraging the construction of replicable models.
• Rep. Tonko then mentioned how the IIJA and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 had included incentives to support both new and existing nuclear energy projects. He commented that these incentives build upon previous federal programs, such as the U.S. Department of Energy’s Title 17 Clean Energy Financing Program. He asked Mr. Cohen to indicate whether the U.S. could significantly ramp up its deployment of nuclear energy absent federal incentives for nuclear projects. He asked Mr. Cohen to comment on the importance of federal incentives for nuclear projects.
  • Mr. Cohen applauded the IIJA and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 for encouraging the deployment of new nuclear energy projects. He also stated that these laws have made private investors more willing to consider new nuclear energy projects and commented that the U.S. must build upon these laws. He stated that current production and investment tax credits are likely too small to meaningfully encourage the construction of mass produced nuclear energy facilities.
• Rep. Tonko also asked Mr. Harrell to discuss the U.S. government’s role in supporting the domestic nuclear energy industry.
  • Mr. Harrell remarked that the U.S. Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office, cost share programs (such as the ARDP), and tax incentives help to offset the initial costs associated with constructing innovative nuclear energy projects. He noted that many companies are hesitant to pursue innovative nuclear energy projects due to their cost and regulatory uncertainty. He stated that the aforementioned programs help to develop feasible nuclear energy projects that can be replicated over time.
• Rep. Tonko then discussed how the uncertainty surrounding nuclear waste disposal creates economic and social headwinds for the U.S. nuclear energy industry’s growth. He asked the witnesses to address how new advanced nuclear reactor designs might help to limit or address nuclear waste challenges.
  • Dr. Gehin discussed how many advanced nuclear reactors can burn more fuel in situ, which results in less nuclear waste. He stated that more research will need to be conducted to increase the fuel burning capabilities of these reactors.

Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA):

• Rep. Griffith remarked that his commonwealth of Virginia is very interested in being a leader in the deployment of advanced nuclear energy technologies. He stated that workforce shortages serve as a key constraint on the U.S.’s ability to scale up its nuclear energy industry. He asked the witnesses to discuss how the U.S. could address these nuclear energy industry workforce shortages.
  • Mr. Harrell first stated that Virginia is well-positioned to be a leader in advanced nuclear energy technologies and highlighted how Virginia’s universities maintain robust nuclear engineering programs. He then discussed how nuclear engineering jobs pay “significantly” higher relative to other energy industries. He also stated that the civilian nuclear sector could serve as a career destination for military servicemembers with nuclear navy experience. He commended the work of the Virginia Nuclear Energy Consortium (VNEC) to bolster Virginia’s nuclear energy sector. He remarked however that there must exist nuclear energy projects so that people will be interested in pursuing nuclear energy careers.
• Rep. Griffith interjected to ask Mr. Harrell to indicate whether there currently exists a sufficient workforce to support new nuclear energy projects.
  • Mr. Harrell remarked that the U.S. currently does not possess a sufficient workforce to support new nuclear energy projects. He stated however that the current excitement surrounding nuclear energy will support a robust worker pipeline for new nuclear energy projects.
• Rep. Griffith asked Mr. Harrell to indicate how long it will take for the U.S. to develop a sufficient workforce for its nuclear energy industry.
  • Mr. Harrell called it important for the U.S. to maintain multiple nuclear energy projects. He commented that these multiple projects will provide people with the necessary long-term certainty to pursue careers in nuclear energy.
• Rep. Griffith asked the other witness to comment on nuclear energy industry workforce issues.
  • Mr. Repko remarked that the U.S. must work to develop construction capabilities for advanced nuclear reactors. He stated that Europe’s strong apprenticeship programs provide them with greater construction capabilities. He then expressed agreement with Mr. Harrell’s calls for the U.S. to maintain multiple nuclear energy projects. He commented that these projects can ensure that there exists strong demand for nuclear energy career training programs.
  • Dr. Gehin expressed agreement with the previous responses. He mentioned how the construction process for two nuclear power plants is nearing completion. He stated that the U.S. should work to provide continuous construction work opportunities for construction workers with nuclear power plant experience.
• Rep. Griffith then asked Mr. Harrell to discuss the benefits that the nuclear energy industry can provide to local communities beyond jobs.
  • Mr. Harrell noted how nuclear facilities tend to remain in operation for decades and provide long-term and stable benefits to their communities, including significant tax revenues. He noted how the solar energy and wind energy industries tend to enter and leave communities more periodically.
• Rep. Griffith interjected to emphasize the strong safety record of the U.S. nuclear energy industry. He then acknowledged that his question period time had expired.

Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX):

• Rep. Veasey noted how the power sector had accounted for 28 percent of the U.S.’s carbon dioxide pollution in 2022. He contended that the U.S. will need reliable and carbon-free energy sources (such as nuclear energy) that can sustain energy outputs for prolonged periods of time in order to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions. He commented that these sources will be key to supporting the U.S. as it works to improve its battery storage capabilities. He noted how the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) had found that nuclear power accounts for about 46 percent of the U.S.’s zero-carbon electricity. He mentioned how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 had created a tax credit of up to 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour for zero emissions nuclear energy. He also noted how this law had provided the U.S. Department of Energy with $700 million to invest in increasing the availability of next generation nuclear fuel for advanced nuclear reactors. He remarked that the U.S. must improve its domestic supply chain for uranium and bolster its uranium enrichment and conversion industry. He stated that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has further complicated the nuclear materials supply chain. He noted how Russian and Chinese nuclear energy companies receive the full backing of their governments when competing for export bids in overseas projects. He commented that this integrated government support has made these projects very competitive and has enabled these foreign companies to dominate the global nuclear materials supply chain. He noted however that research indicates that the U.S. nuclear industry is well-positioned to become a global leader in key parts of the value chain for nuclear fuel and the manufacturing of SMRs. He asked the witnesses to address how the U.S. is working to ensure that it possesses the necessary technology and infrastructure to compete in the global nuclear energy market. He also asked the witnesses to provide recommendations for how Congress could best support these efforts so that the U.S. can lead the development of new nuclear reactors with the highest global standards of safety, security, and non-proliferation.
  • Mr. Harrell remarked that the U.S. needs a “whole of government” approach for promoting its nuclear energy industry. He noted how China and Russia are engaging in very long-term nuclear energy partnerships with other countries and are willing to build and staff these foreign nuclear energy facilities. He stated that while the U.S. is not going to emulate this model, he suggested that the U.S. could offer competitive financing packages to foreign nuclear energy projects. He highlighted how the U.S. had recently supported nuclear energy projects in Poland through the EXIM Bank and the DFC. He also stated that having the U.S. make new nuclear fuel deals will help to spur domestic uranium enrichment capacity. He asserted that the U.S.’s failure to take the aforementioned types of actions will render it noncompetitive with Russia and China. He mentioned how Ghana is currently seeking international support to build nuclear energy capacity and stated that the U.S. must compete for this opportunity.
  • Mr. Cohen suggested that the U.S. does not need to be the only party that mitigates the financial risks associated with nuclear energy projects. He stated that there could be an international bank for nuclear infrastructure to help finance nuclear energy projects globally. He noted that the World Bank does not finance nuclear energy projects for several reasons. He stated that his proposed international bank for nuclear infrastructure would involve numerous member countries and would mitigate the financing risks associated with nuclear energy projects. He asserted that U.S. nuclear reactors could compete in this financing environment.
• Rep. Veasey then expressed interest in exploring potential opportunities for cooperation between the U.S. Department of Energy and the DoD on nuclear energy projects. He mentioned how the DoD has expressed interest in using advanced nuclear energy technologies to power domestic land bases and to provide reliable energy to forward areas. He asked Mr. Harrell to identify the synergies between DoD nuclear energy projects and commercial nuclear energy projects. He also asked Mr. Harrell to address how DoD-led nuclear energy projects can support the advancement of new nuclear energy projects in the civilian sector.
  • Mr. Harrell mentioned how one study had found that the civilian nuclear energy industry and the U.S. defense apparatus provide each other with $3 billion in benefits. He then discussed how many military servicemember deaths are attributable to the transfer of diesel fuels to combat areas. He noted how the DoD is currently working on the Project Pele Mobile Microreactor and Perform Demonstration, which seeks to enable transportable nuclear reactors to power military operations. He commented that this Project would address one of the single largest casualty risks for military servicemembers.

Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY):

• Rep. Guthrie recounted how his commonwealth of Kentucky had lifted its moratorium on nuclear energy in 2017. He noted how Kentucky has a strong interest in developing nuclear power projects. He stated that nuclear energy could help to continue Kentucky’s energy leadership and improve the reliability of Kentucky’s energy grid. He mentioned how Kentucky had recently experienced rolling blackouts, which he attributed to the closure of several coal-fired power plants. He asked Mr. Repko to indicate whether Duke Energy is considering converting old coal-fired power plants into nuclear power plants. He also asked Mr. Repko to identify some of the performance features of new nuclear energy technologies that could lead Duke Energy to make investments in this area.
  • Mr. Repko testified that Duke Energy is considering proposals to site new nuclear energy technologies at existing coal-fired plant sites. He noted how there exist some technologies that support the retrofitting of coal-fired plants and indicated that these technologies typically relate to storage. He stated however that existing retiring energy sites provide the best opportunities for deploying new nuclear energy projects. He explained that these retiring energy sites already have water and transmission infrastructure and noted how there exist “very generous” incentives for the replacement of energy generation capacities.
• Rep. Guthrie provided the other witnesses with an opportunity to comment on the prospects of converting old coal-fired power plants into nuclear power plants.
  • Mr. Cohen remarked that the U.S. government has significant funding and authorities through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 to support efforts to convert coal-fired power plants into nuclear power plants. He stated that the U.S. Department of Energy should coordinate the regulations, funding, and planning to support these types of conversions. He also highlighted how local communities tend to support proposals to convert coal-fired power plants to nuclear power plants.
  • Mr. Harrell remarked that there exist ample opportunities to ease the process for converting old coal-fired power plants into nuclear power plants. He noted how the construction of coal-fired power plants and nuclear power plants have similar dynamics and asserted that the NRC ought to make it easier to build nuclear power plants on old coal-fired power plant sites. He highlighted how old coal-fired power plants have transmission lines that can be used by nuclear power plants. He further stated that workers at old coal-fired power plants can find jobs at the newly constructed nuclear power plants. He mentioned how TerraPower’s upcoming Wyoming nuclear energy facility will separate the nuclear power unit from the operations unit. He stated that many old coal-fired power plant workers could work in this operations unit with “minimal” training.
• Rep. Guthrie mentioned how he had recently visited the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Paradise Fossil Plant. He noted how this plant had been converted from a coal-powered plant with 400 employees into a combined gas plant with about 32 employees. He attributed this decrease in employees to the increased use of automation.
  • Dr. Gehin stated that Kentucky has several opportunities for converting coal-fired power sites into nuclear power sites. He mentioned how a U.S. Department of Energy study had found that about 80 percent of coal-fired power sites could be converted into nuclear power sites. He noted that this conversion would reduce the cost of deploying nuclear power plants by between 15 percent and 35 percent.
• Rep. Guthrie then noted how Duke Energy has applied for license renewals from the NRC for its expiring licenses for several of their nuclear power plants. He asked Mr. Repko to explain how these expiring licenses can be safely extended and continue to improve reliable and affordable energy. He also asked Mr. Repko to discuss the regulatory challenges associated with the license extension application process.
  • Mr. Repko remarked that the age of Duke Energy’s nuclear power plants seeking license extensions do not reflect their actual physical conditions and noted how these plants are constantly having their physical assets replaced. He acknowledged that while the reactor vessels of these plants are not being replaced, he testified that these reactor vessels undergo “extensive monitoring.” He stated that Duke Energy is seeking regulatory certainty from the NRC to enable the continued operation of these plants.

Rep. Ann Kuster (D-NH):

• Rep. Kuster discussed how nuclear and hydropower had been the main sources of carbon-free energy for the U.S. prior to the emergence of cheap solar and wind energy. She commended the Subcommittee for holding a hearing on nuclear energy and requested that the Subcommittee hold a hearing on hydropower in the near future. She then noted how the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant is responsible for nearly 60 percent of the electricity generated in her state of New Hampshire. She commented that this facility is a source of reliable power and provides high-paying and high-skilled jobs. She lamented that the U.S. remains overly dependent on nuclear fuel imports from Russia. She noted how Russia supplies approximately 14 percent of the U.S.’s low-enriched uranium, which is a key component for nuclear fuel. She also raised concerns that the proceeds from Russia’s nuclear fuel sales to the U.S. might be supporting Russia’s military campaign against Ukraine. She mentioned how Congress had recently acted in a bipartisan manner to ban the importation of Russian oil and natural gas. She asked Mr. Harrell to indicate whether Congress should ban imports of low-enriched uranium from Russia.
  • Mr. Harrell remarked that U.S. and allied nuclear energy providers and nuclear fuel enrichers need assurances that Russia will not flood the global nuclear fuel market with cheap supplies.
• Rep. Kuster then discussed how new advanced nuclear reactors have the potential to reliably produce power with fewer environmental externalities and safety concerns than existing nuclear energy technologies. She noted however that HALU (which is an important fuel source for advanced nuclear reactors) also largely comes from Russia. She asked Mr. Harrell and Mr. Cohen to indicate whether banning the importation of Russian uranium would create an incentive to move HALEU production to “friendlier” nations.
  • Mr. Harrell remarked that the greatest action that the U.S. could take to spur domestic HALEU production would be to have the Biden administration launch the Advanced Nuclear Fuel Availability Program. He noted how this Program was authorized under the Energy Act of 2020 and stated that the Program would provide U.S. companies with certainty to ramp up their domestic HALEU production.
  • Mr. Cohen remarked that there exist both supply and demand side solutions for addressing the U.S.’s dependence on Russian nuclear fuels. He mentioned his organization’s support for increased appropriations for the HALEU Availability Program.
• Rep. Kuster then asked Mr. Cohen to discuss the safety benefits of advanced nuclear reactors and to address how having a secure fuel supply for these reactors would help the U.S. to realize these safety benefits.
  • Mr. Cohen first commented that access to advanced nuclear fuels is a precondition for advanced nuclear reactors. He then remarked that the most significant safety feature of many advanced nuclear reactors is that they are not dependent on water as a coolant or reaction moderator. He stated that the loss of coolant has historically driven major nuclear reactor accidents. He indicated that many advanced nuclear reactor designs have coolants or reaction moderators with much higher temperature thresholds. He explained that these higher temperature thresholds reduce the risk of a runaway reaction that melts through the nuclear reactor’s core and containment vessel.
• Rep. Kuster stated that there exists bipartisan interest in banning Russian uranium imports. She commented that this ban will make the U.S.’s energy supply chains more secure. She expressed interest in working to develop this ban.

Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH):

• Rep. Johnson stated that nuclear power is the only large-scale reliable baseload carbon-free electricity source that is available. He contended that the world needs more nuclear energy and that the U.S. must work to be a global leader in this space. He discussed how Russia and China have century-long agreements with foreign countries when they export their nuclear energy technologies. He commented that these long-term agreements provide Russia and China with geostrategic advantages. He raised concerns that the U.S.’s regulatory framework for nuclear energy is outdated and asserted that the U.S. must update this regulatory framework. He expressed his intention to reintroduce the Strengthening American Nuclear Competitiveness Act. He noted that one key aspect of this bill is to require the U.S. Department of Energy to provide a report on U.S. civilian nuclear commerce. He asked Mr. Harrell to explain why it is important for the U.S. to understand the gaps in its nuclear energy supply chain.
  • Mr. Harrell remarked that the U.S.’s failure to meet the foreign demand for nuclear energy projects will cause other countries (such as Russia and China) to meet this foreign demand. He called it a national security imperative for the U.S. to compete to supply the nuclear energy needs of foreign countries. He stated that U.S. investments in its domestic supply chain would be key to ensuring that the U.S. can supply the nuclear energy needs of foreign countries.
• Rep. Johnson also noted how the Strengthening American Nuclear Competitiveness Act would direct the NRC to look at unique industrial and manufacturing uses for nuclear energy, as well as innovative advanced nuclear reactors that can be safely located closer to cities and businesses. He asked Dr. Gehin and Mr. Harrell to address how these innovative technologies will impact U.S. nuclear energy leadership.
  • Dr. Gehin discussed how nuclear energy reactors (particularly advanced nuclear energy reactors) produce energy at much higher temperatures. He stated that this energy can be used for industrial processes, including hydrogen, steel, and chemical processing. He added that this energy can also be used for oil refining. He stated that this work can be deployed worldwide.
  • Mr. Harrell expressed agreement with Dr. Gehin and stated that advanced nuclear energy technologies can support chemical, steel, and hydrogen production. He remarked that nuclear regulators would need to revise their policies to account for the new features of these advanced nuclear energy technologies. He elaborated that nuclear regulators must be willing to approve advanced nuclear projects that can be located closer to businesses and people.
• Rep. Johnson then remarked that the development of new nuclear fuels is inherently challenging. He noted that while new reactors are needed to justify the development of new nuclear fuels, he also commented that there must exist reliable fuel supplies to justify the construction of new reactors. He stated that the future of advanced nuclear reactors depends on HALEU. He asked Mr. Harrell to explain why it is important for the U.S. to develop a domestic supply of HALEU. He also asked Mr. Harrell to project the consequences of the U.S.’s failure to provide sufficient HALEU supplies to nuclear innovators.
  • Mr. Harrell noted that Russia is the only entity that is capable of providing a large supply of HALEU. He commented that the U.S. does not want to be reliant on Russia for HALEU and asserted that the U.S. must therefore develop a domestic HALEU supply. He called on the Biden administration to launch the Advanced Nuclear Fuel Availability Program.
• Rep. Johnson remarked that either the U.S. will be the global leader in nuclear energy or Russia and China will be the global leaders in nuclear energy.

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL):

• Rep. Castor mentioned how she had led the U.S. House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. She noted how this Committee had developed recommendations for “ambitious” reductions in carbon pollution through a cleaner and more resilient electricity sector. She then mentioned how Congress had passed the IIJA, which included $6 billion for the Civil Nuclear Credit Program to keep existing nuclear power plants online. She also mentioned how Congress had passed the CHIPS and Science Act, which authorized research, development, demonstration, and deployment activities for nuclear fusion and nuclear fission technologies. She further mentioned how Congress had passed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which established the Clean Energy Production Tax Credit and the Zero Emission Production Tax Credit. She then noted how the U.S. currently has 92 nuclear reactors and indicated that this number will soon increase to 94 nuclear reactors. She asked Dr. Gehin and Mr. Repko to identify important considerations for Congress as the aforementioned laws get implemented.
  • Dr. Gehin stated that most nuclear reactors currently in operation will extend their lifespans from 40 years to 60 years. He commented that these reactors undergo rigorous regulatory processes to ensure that they possess strong safety standards. He further stated that these nuclear reactors are maintained “impeccably” and are having their components replaced on a routine basis. He mentioned how there have been some nuclear power plants (including Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station) that have extended their lifespans to 80 years and indicated that these power plants undergo rigorous regulatory processes. He then remarked that the greatest threat that current nuclear power plants face is market competition from other energy sources. He elaborated that nuclear power plants must compete against cheap natural gas and subsidized renewable energy sources. He stated that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and other policies have helped to make nuclear energy more competitive. He remarked that the U.S. should work to expand the lifespans of its existing nuclear reactors and bring on more nuclear reactors (including SMRs and advanced nuclear reactors).
  • Mr. Repko testified that Duke Energy has made commitments to pursue license extensions for its existing fleet of 11 nuclear reactors. He stated that these nuclear reactors have proven “valuable and necessary” for meeting the company’s carbon emissions reduction goals. He indicated that these reactors are receiving regulatory support. He further testified that Duke Energy’s nuclear power fleet has provided 24 consecutive years of capacity factors greater than 90 percent.
• Rep. Castor interjected to remark that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 would result in lower electricity bills for consumers. She stated that her state of Florida currently has very high electricity costs and attributed these high costs to the state’s reliance on gas-generated energy. She asserted that Florida’s energy portfolio is too concentrated, which can cause spikes in electricity prices. She expressed hope that energy utilities will take advantage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s tax credits to expand their solar and wind power capabilities (in addition to their nuclear power capabilities). She commented that the use of solar power in Florida has “great potential.”
  • Mr. Repko expressed Duke Energy’s interest in pursuing solar power in addition to nuclear power. He testified that Duke Energy plans to build 300 megawatts per year of solar power capacity in its future plants.

Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN):

• Rep. Bucshon remarked that Congress must pursue an “all of the above” energy strategy to maintain energy grid reliability, reduce emissions, and ensure affordable energy prices. He stated that nuclear energy plays an important part in the U.S.’s diverse energy mix. He recounted how he had recently joined a Congressional Delegation trip to Europe and noted how there exist significant opportunities for U.S. companies to support Poland’s deployment of nuclear energy. He also stated that the U.S. should work to export its nuclear energy technologies to high emissions countries (such as India) if it seeks to meaningfully combat climate change. He then discussed how NEIMA had directed the NRC to establish a risk-informed technologically neutral framework that is suitable for licensing advanced nuclear energy technologies. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether the NRC had met the objectives set forward in NEIMA.
  • Mr. Harrell remarked that the NRC’s initial draft of their 10 CFR Part 53 rule does not meet the objectives of NEIMA. He commended NRC Chairman Christopher Hanson for his recent announcement that the NRC will conduct further work on its 10 CFR Part 53 rule. He stated that the nuclear project designs that are set to seek NRC approval between 2025 and 2027 will use 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 52. He remarked that 10 CFR Part 53 would be key for supporting future nuclear energy technologies.
  • Mr. Cohen remarked that the NRC’s initial draft of their 10 CFR Part 53 rule does not meet the objectives of NEIMA and would make the existing system even more complex. He stated that other countries have taken more effective approaches to licensing advanced nuclear energy technologies.
  • Mr. Repko mentioned how a survey from the Nuclear Energy Institute and the U.S. Nuclear Industry Council had found that 18 of 21 respondents would not use the NRC’s proposed 10 CFR Part 53 rule in its current form. He commented that there exists ample opportunity to improve this proposed rule.
• Rep. Bucshon also expressed interest in using nuclear power for uses outside of electricity generation. He asked Mr. Harrell to discuss the barriers to constructing nuclear reactors that can produce non-electricity end products, such as heat for industrial applications and hydrogen.
  • Mr. Harrell remarked that the U.S. must address several issues to support the construction of nuclear reactors that can produce non-electricity end products. He stated that the U.S. must consider how it would site a nuclear reactor that would need to be located near an industrial facility (such as a chemical facility or a steel production facility) or near critical infrastructure to distribute hydrogen. He asserted that the NRC’s existing regulatory framework is not very conducive to these new applications of nuclear energy technology. He stated however that the NRC is working on rules to modernize emergency preparedness zones and environmental impact statements. He expressed support for having the NRC advance these proposals.
• Rep. Bucshon lastly disputed the assertion that increasing the U.S.’s use of renewable energy sources will result in lower energy costs. He stated that current evidence shows that the increased use of renewable energy sources will result in higher energy costs in the short-term. He also stated that increased reliance on renewable energy sources will cause energy grid reliability and stability challenges.

Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD):

• Rep. Sarbanes expressed appreciation for the role that nuclear power can play in the U.S.’s energy portfolio. He expressed particular interest in advanced nuclear reactors and commented that these reactors can address many of the siting, waste, and cost problems present in more traditional nuclear reactors. He asked Dr. Gehin to discuss the potential benefits of advanced nuclear reactors.
  • Dr. Gehin noted how advanced nuclear reactors tend to be smaller than traditional nuclear reactors. He stated that the smaller nature of advanced nuclear reactors makes it possible to manufacture these reactors in factories, which can result in more cost-effective production. He also stated that having smaller reactors would make investors more willing to pursue nuclear energy projects, as these projects will require less capital. He added that these advanced nuclear reactors are easier to deploy, which will enable investors to more easily recoup their initial investments. He then discussed how advanced nuclear reactors can produce higher temperatures, which enables them to support applications beyond electricity generation. He indicated that these additional applications might generate higher revenues. He also stated that these higher temperatures can support the production of more efficient electricity. He further highlighted how advanced nuclear reactors tend to be passively safe. He explained that advanced nuclear reactors have fewer systems (which will result in lower production costs). He noted that while the first advanced nuclear reactors will be more expensive to produce, he stated that these production costs will likely decrease overtime as more units are produced.
• Rep. Sarbanes asked Dr. Gehin to project the future composition of the U.S.’s future nuclear fleet in terms of traditional nuclear reactors versus advanced nuclear reactors. He asked Dr. Gehin to indicate whether the U.S. may eventually only have advanced nuclear reactors.
  • Dr. Gehin expressed hope that the U.S. can continue to operate its current traditional nuclear fleet for a long time. He noted how there exists international interest in constructing large traditional nuclear reactors and explained that many countries need to significantly increase their deployments of nuclear energy. He predicted that the U.S. will likely focus more on deploying SMRs. He noted that the U.S. could deploy multiple SMRs in a given location to increase overall energy generation.
• Rep. Sarbanes then asked Mr. Cohen to compare the climate change impact of advanced nuclear reactors to the climate change impact of traditional nuclear reactors.
  • Mr. Cohen remarked that the U.S.’s ability to deploy nuclear energy facilities more quickly and cheaply will have a beneficial impact on the climate. He noted how both advanced nuclear reactors and traditional nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide emissions.

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI):

• Rep. Walberg mentioned how his Congressional District has two nuclear facilities and commented that these facilities are producing sufficient clean and reliable energy to power millions of homes. He stated that both of these plants have adopted robust safety measures. He remarked that U.S. nuclear companies have invested time, money, energy, and expertise to make nuclear power safer and more effective. He expressed concerns however that the U.S. is missing an opportunity to expand its existing nuclear fleet. He mentioned how some nuclear power plants have looked into uprating and increasing their power generation capabilities as more gas and coal-fired plants are being forced to shut down. He asked Dr. Gehin and Mr. Repko to discuss the challenges associated with uprating existing nuclear facilities.
  • Mr. Repko testified that half of Duke Energy’s nuclear fleet has already been uprated and that Duke Energy is currently evaluating uprating opportunities for the remainder of its nuclear fleet. He estimated that Duke Energy could collectively gain over 300 megawatts of clean and reliable energy through uprating. He called the uprating process established and stated that Duke Energy viewed this process as economically viable. He added that Duke Energy’s regulators are supportive of the company’s uprating efforts.
  • Dr. Gehin discussed how the uprating process requires nuclear facilities and their regulators to look at the safety parameters of the nuclear facilities. He noted that this process occasionally requires nuclear facilities to upgrade their equipment and commented that these equipment upgrades are not very difficult to perform. He remarked however that the uprating process may not be economically feasible to pursue for many nuclear facilities. He stated that uprated nuclear facilities tend to offer very cheap additional energy generation capacity. He suggested that production tax credits could be used to make uprating more economically feasible. He also commented that the uprating process does not significantly alter the technical operations of existing nuclear facilities.
• Rep. Walberg asked Dr. Gehin to provide recommendations for how Congress could ensure timely licensing decisions from the NRC. He commented that the NRC review process contributes to the costs of building new nuclear facilities.
  • Dr. Gehin recommended that Congress consider reforming the timelines for the NRC’s mandatory hearings and environmental reviews.
• Rep. Walberg then mentioned how the Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station in his Congressional District had obtained a third license from the NRC. He commented that the process for obtaining this third license involved significant expenditures of time, money, and effort. He stated however that this nuclear facility does not believe that it will ever make use of the license. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether it could ever become financially viable to build a new nuclear project at the Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station.
  • Mr. Repko stated that Duke Energy has found it financially viable to build additional nuclear projects. He suggested that there could exist lessons learned from Duke Energy’s experience that can inform other nuclear facilities seeking to build new nuclear projects.
• Rep. Walberg indicated that his question period time had expired.

Rep. Tony Cárdenas (D-CA):

• Rep. Cárdenas expressed hope that the Committee could make progress on the issue of nuclear energy in a bipartisan manner. He noted how nuclear energy accounts for nearly half of the zero-carbon electricity generated in the U.S. He stated that the safe deployment of nuclear energy could help the U.S. to address climate change. He raised concerns however over the effects that nuclear waste has on the health and safety of its nearby communities. He commented that inequities and exposure to pollution are already persistent across the U.S. He stated that the U.S. must address the legacy of the toxic waste associated with nuclear energy so as to not recreate, reinforce, or worsen environmental injustices. He asked Mr. Repko to discuss how the U.S.’s nuclear plants deal with and manage low-level and high-level nuclear waste. He also asked Mr. Repko to address how nuclear waste storage has impacted the safety, health, and security of nearby communities.
  • Mr. Repko commented that Dr. Gehin is better able to respond to Rep. Cárdenas’s question.
  • Dr. Gehin discussed how spent nuclear fuel is moved to dry storage and noted how the U.S. has been working to develop a consolidated spent nuclear fuel interim storage facility in a centralized location. He stated that spent nuclear fuel storage containers are “incredibly robust.” He then noted how there exist standard commercial processes for handling low-level nuclear waste that are very quick.
• Rep. Cárdenas asked Dr. Gehin to indicate how long high-level nuclear waste must remain in dry storage.
  • Dr. Gehin stated that high-level nuclear waste will need to remain in dry storage until a geological repository is developed. He commented that the development of a geological repository for nuclear waste remains an ongoing policy issue.
• Rep. Cárdenas asked Dr. Gehin to indicate how long has the U.S.’s current high-level nuclear waste remained in dry storage.
  • Dr. Gehin remarked that the U.S.’s lack of a geological repository for nuclear waste has caused high-level nuclear waste to remain in dry storage for its entire existence. He noted how some of this nuclear waste has been stored for 40 years. He indicated however that the storage containers for this nuclear waste have been designed to last for over 100 years.
  • Mr. Repko remarked that the storage containers for nuclear waste are “very robust” and are meant to withstand transportation accidents and fire. He emphasized that the U.S. is still maintaining its original spent nuclear fuel. He also testified that Duke Energy has needed to move its spent fuel around its various facilities to make room at some of its facilities for additional spent fuel. He stated that the U.S. must address the problem of nuclear waste.
• Rep. Cárdenas remarked that while nuclear energy facilities provide cleaner fuel on the front end, he emphasized that nuclear energy has the byproduct of waste. He stated that the U.S. must address this nuclear waste issue to ensure the safety of nuclear facilities and their nearby communities.
  • Mr. Repko remarked that the U.S. needs to address the issues associated with nuclear waste. He also stated that there exist radiological controls meant to ensure the safety of nuclear waste storage. He noted that all of the high-level nuclear waste that has ever been generated in the U.S. could fit on a football field and indicated that this waste would reach 30 feet high. He asserted that this issue of nuclear waste is therefore very solvable.
• Rep. Cárdenas stated that the addition of new nuclear facilities will increase the U.S.’s amount of nuclear waste. He remarked that the U.S. must work to ensure that nuclear fuel will be both cleaner and safer.

Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL):

• Rep. Palmer discussed how France has a robust legislative and regulatory framework for addressing nuclear safety and largely attributed the safety and efficiency of France’s nuclear fleet to its design standardization. He also noted how France can recycle their spent nuclear fuel rods and can recover up to 96 percent of reusable material. He added that the remaining material can still be used for other purposes. He asked Mr. Harrell to comment on this topic.
  • Mr. Harrell remarked that the U.S. can use spent fuel repositories for productive use and noted how 95 percent of the energy in spent fuel is being wasted. He indicated that advanced nuclear reactors could burn some of this spent fuel. He stated that the U.S. nuclear sector has an opportunity to recycle its spent fuel and highlighted how other countries are currently recycling this fuel. He contended that the U.S. should make investments in nuclear spent fuel recycling and mentioned how many companies (including Oklo and Curio) are currently exploring this area. He added that the U.S. Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) has recently explored nuclear energy recycling opportunities. He stated that new nuclear facilities can thus reduce the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel repository.
• Rep. Palmer interjected to ask Dr. Gehin to estimate how much power generation could be achieved through recycling the U.S.’s current supply of spent nuclear fuel.
  • Dr. Gehin stated that recycling the U.S.’s existing spent nuclear fuel supply can support all of the U.S.’s electricity needs for “well over” 100 years. He acknowledged however that a new type of nuclear reactor (which is currently being developed) would be needed to make use of this spent nuclear fuel. He also discussed how the enriched uranium production process involves the creation of depleted uranium. He noted that this depleted uranium can also be used as fuel. He remarked that the U.S. therefore has ample supplies of nuclear fuel. He acknowledged however that the U.S. would need to undertake a long-term research and development (R&D) effort to fully maximize its use of nuclear fuels.
• Rep. Palmer interjected to comment that the recycling of nuclear waste would largely address the U.S.’s nuclear waste storage challenges.
  • Dr. Gehin stated that the U.S. will still need to address the issue of nuclear waste disposal if it seeks to pursue more nuclear waste recycling. He commented however that the scale of the nuclear waste disposal issue would be lower if recycling were to be further pursued.
• Rep. Palmer then noted how renewable energy sources will not experience a significant increase in their power generation capabilities because these sources already operate near their peak efficiencies. He stated that advanced nuclear energy technologies would have several advantages over renewable energy sources, including the ability to use less land, the ability to operate on a 24/7 basis, and longer equipment lifespans. He asked the witnesses to comment on the advantages that advanced nuclear energy technologies have over renewable energy sources.
  • Mr. Cohen stated that nuclear energy technology consumes much fewer materials than renewable energy sources. He commented that the compact nature of nuclear facilities constitutes one of nuclear energy technology’s chief advantages.
• Rep. Palmer expressed optimism that the Subcommittee can pursue bipartisan legislative reforms related to nuclear energy.

Rep. Kim Schrier (D-WA):

• Rep. Schrier applauded the Subcommittee for its bipartisan discussion on ways to deploy nuclear energy in a safe manner. She expressed support for integrating nuclear energy into the U.S.’s energy portfolio. She mentioned how her state of Washington only has one nuclear power plant (the Columbia Generating Station) and indicated that this plant generates just 12 percent of the state’s electricity. She remarked that expanding Washington’s nuclear energy portfolio will enable the state to better integrate renewable energy sources into its energy portfolio and reduce its reliance on fossil fuels. She stated that SMRs and other advanced nuclear reactor technologies could reduce the economic, technical, security, perceived safety, and regulatory barriers associated with nuclear power, which can in turn support the establishment of new nuclear power facilities throughout the U.S. She then noted how changes in the energy portfolio can create anxiety for other segments of energy workers. She mentioned however that the U.S. Department of Energy’s recent report titled “Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Advanced Nuclear” indicates that advanced SMRs can create about 230 permanent onsite jobs per gigawatt. She also noted how the median nuclear energy industry wage is the highest in the energy industry. She commented that transitioning coal plant sites to advanced nuclear energy sites could create significant employment opportunities for workers. She asked Mr. Harrell to address how the U.S. can work with the nuclear industry and labor groups to support the U.S.’s nuclear workforce development efforts.
  • Mr. Harrell discussed how the U.S. nuclear supply chain already employees 500,000 Americans and commented that nuclear supply chain jobs are good high-paying jobs. He noted how TerraPower’s Natrium reactor in Wyoming is set to create 2,000 construction jobs and support 250 full time employees. He noted how many of these employees will come from a retired coal plant that was previously located at the site. He also discussed how the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories and many U.S. universities are working to support workforce development efforts. He noted how Abilene Christian University is building a research nuclear reactor on their campus and ramping up their nuclear energy program. He added that many Washington universities are pursuing their own nuclear energy education programs.
• Rep. Schrier reiterated her interest in working to address nuclear energy issues in a bipartisan fashion. She expressed particular interest in the recently introduced Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy (ADVANCE) Act of 2023.

Subcommittee Vice Chair John Curtis (R-UT):

• Vice Chair Curtis remarked that nuclear energy is key to providing affordable, clean, and reliable energy and expressed confidence in the nuclear energy industry’s ability to address the challenges associated with nuclear energy. He then discussed how the UAMPS has been engaged in efforts to license an SMR for nearly a decade. He indicated that UAMPS has spent about $100 million on this effort and is only halfway through the licensing process. He called this situation unacceptable if the U.S. seeks to make nuclear energy a “major” part of its energy portfolio. He also mentioned how PacifiCorp’s Rock Mountain Power is located in his Congressional District and is working to establish another nuclear power plant in Wyoming. He noted how PacifiCorp is looking at previously closed coal plants as potential locations for their nuclear power plants. He expressed optimism regarding the suitability of these previously closed coal plant sites for nuclear energy projects. He asked the witnesses to address how Congress could help nuclear energy companies to pursue innovative nuclear projects. He mentioned how he had proposed legislation that would authorize the U.S. Secretary of Energy to provide targeted awards to cover the regulatory costs associated with new nuclear energy technologies.
  • Mr. Harrell mentioned how NuScale Power had needed to spend $500 million over five years to get their design certification and noted how UAMPS (which is the customer for the NuScale Power reactor) must make significant expenditures to deploy this proposed reactor. He asserted that this situation is not conducive for fostering the deployment of nuclear energy projects. He stated that having the U.S. Department of Energy provide targeted awards to innovative nuclear projects would help these projects to move through the regulatory approval process. He commented that the entire industry is benefiting from NuScale Power’s willingness to undergo the regulatory approval process for their innovative nuclear projects and contended that NuScale Power deserves federal support for their efforts. He also stated that refundable tax credits and the ARDP can support the deployment of new innovative nuclear energy technologies.
• Vice Chair Curtis applauded the efforts of NuScale Power and UAMPS for their efforts to deploy new innovative nuclear energy technologies. He then mentioned how his Congressional District contains a uranium mill that is under political pressure to close. He lamented how the U.S. remains dependent on foreign countries (including China) for its uranium supply. He asked the witnesses to address how the U.S. could reduce its reliance on foreign countries for uranium.
  • Dr. Gehin remarked that there needs to exist sufficient demand to make it economically feasible to mine uranium domestically. He noted how the global price of uranium is currently very cheap.
• Vice Chair Curtis interjected to comment that the U.S. must ensure it possesses a sufficient uranium processing capability.
  • Dr. Gehin remarked that the U.S. must ensure that it possesses sufficient uranium mining, processing, and conversion capabilities.
• Vice Chair Curtis also mentioned how PacifiCorp’s upcoming project will produce hydrogen. He asked Mr. Harrell to discuss the importance of hydrogen production for meeting the U.S.’s energy needs. He also asked Mr. Harrell to indicate whether the U.S. is providing sufficient resources for hydrogen production.
  • Mr. Harrell remarked that permitting reform will be necessary to building out hydrogen distribution infrastructure. He highlighted how nuclear facilities will support an increase in the U.S.’s hydrogen production capabilities.
• Vice Chair Curtis acknowledged that his question period time had expired. He lastly asked the witnesses to indicate whether nuclear energy constitutes one of the U.S.’s safest forms of energy, to which all of the witnesses answered affirmatively.

Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ):

• Rep. Lesko first mentioned how the Palo Verde Generating Station is located near her Congressional District. She then discussed the need for new sources for uranium and nuclear fuel, especially if the U.S. is to increase its deployment of SMRs. She also stated that the U.S. is too reliant on Russia for nuclear fuel and crucial isotopes. She asked Mr. Harrell to provide his thoughts on recycling nuclear waste.
  • Mr. Harrell remarked that the U.S. has a “huge” opportunity to pursue nuclear waste recycling and called on the U.S. to invest in nuclear waste R&D. He commented that nuclear waste recycling can both reduce the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel reserves and increase the U.S.’s fuel security.
• Rep. Lesko asked Mr. Harrell to identify the obstacles that are currently preventing nuclear waste from being recycled.
  • Mr. Harrell stated that political factors are impeding the U.S.’s ability to address nuclear waste. He noted how the U.S. Department of Energy has the authority to address nuclear waste. He also mentioned how ARPA-E is engaged in public-private partnerships with some companies to address nuclear waste. He stated that Japan and France have been able to address nuclear waste concerns and asserted that the U.S. should also be able to address these concerns.
• Rep. Lesko asked Mr. Harrell to discuss the costs associated with addressing nuclear waste.
  • Mr. Harrell indicated that the nuclear fuel produced from recycling spent nuclear fuel will be more expensive than brand new nuclear fuel. He noted however that the U.S.’s existing spent nuclear fuel does have cost liability and stated that federal taxpayers are currently paying for the U.S.’s lack of a long-term spent nuclear fuel repository. He commented that these current interim storage costs must be considered when evaluating the cost of the fuel produced from spent nuclear fuel.
• Rep. Lesko then noted how she had recently met with Arizona electric cooperatives and indicated that these cooperatives were “very concerned” with making sure that they have access to reliable electricity. She recounted how one cooperative had indicated that they faced significant challenges obtaining batteries to store the energy generated from solar energy sources. She highlighted how the U.S. is providing billions of dollars in federal subsidies for solar and wind energy sources. She asked the witnesses to indicate whether the U.S. should divert some of these federal subsidies for solar and wind energy sources to nuclear energy sources.
  • Mr. Cohen remarked that the U.S. will need nuclear, solar, and wind energy sources to meet its energy and climate change goals and asserted that the U.S. should not view the uses of these energy sources as “zero sum.” He acknowledged that the market is not appropriately accounting for the reliability benefits of nuclear energy, which is causing nuclear energy to be viewed as more expensive than solar and wind energy sources. He suggested that state regulatory actions could help to ensure that nuclear energy will be properly valued. He remarked however that the U.S. will need to pursue nuclear, solar, and wind energy if it seeks to significantly increase its supply of zero-carbon electricity.
  • Dr. Gehin expressed agreement with Mr. Cohen’s response. He also stated that the U.S. should promote the inclusion of nuclear energy options as part of integrated resource plans.
  • Mr. Harrell expressed confidence that new nuclear energy technologies will eventually be able to compete in the energy marketplace without special incentives. He stated that while these incentives are “critical” for supporting the first set of deployments of innovative nuclear energy technologies, he predicted that these technologies will become attractive to deploy from a price and security standpoint once they are scaled up and mass produced.
• Rep. Lesko lastly expressed interest in monitoring the Idaho National Laboratory’s work on SMRs and the feasibility of replicating this work.

Rep. Greg Pence (R-IN):

• Rep. Pence highlighted how Purdue University (which is located in his state of Indiana) has one of the U.S.’s leading nuclear engineering programs and has the U.S.’s first and only fully digitized nuclear reactor. He indicated that this digitized nuclear reactor is used to train Purdue University students. He also mentioned how Purdue University has undergone “extensive” collaboration with Duke Energy to study opportunities to use next generation SMRs to power its campus. He further mentioned how Rolls-Royce in Indianapolis is advancing their nuclear reactor designs for a transportable SMR designed to provide 470 megawatts of baseload power. He noted that while Indiana does not currently have nuclear assets powering its energy grid, he highlighted how Indiana’s state legislature is working to facilitate the deployment of advanced nuclear reactors across the state. He mentioned how he had previously met with U.S. Assistant Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Energy Kathryn Huff and Duke Energy leaders at Purdue University. He indicated that this meeting had concerned the collaboration between Duke Energy and Purdue University on a joint feasibility study for bringing nuclear power to Purdue University’s campus. He mentioned how this collaboration had made several policy recommendations to accelerate the commercial deployment of advanced nuclear energy technologies. He noted how one of these recommendations had focused on a university-led consortium of industry leaders and researchers for advanced nuclear convergent manufacturing, qualification of manufacturing components, and workforce development. He stated that research universities are “well positioned” to use advanced technologies and expertise in material science to assist the deployment and operation of SMRs. He asked Mr. Repko to discuss the importance of Duke Energy’s collaboration with Purdue University. He also asked Mr. Repko to address the potential benefits of implementing a public-private consortium for convergent manufacturing and workforce development.
  • Mr. Repko mentioned how Duke Energy is working with Purdue University on SMR technologies and expressed the company’s appreciation for this work. He stated that a public-private consortium would help to address the multitude of considerations surrounding the deployment of SMRs. He indicated that these considerations include technical challenges, environmental issues, workforce issues, and supply chain issues.
• Rep. Pence emphasized that an educated workforce is necessary for the prompt deployment of nuclear projects. He then expressed interest in the Project Pele Mobile Microreactor and Perform Demonstration and commented that this initiative can advance military and civil nuclear energy capabilities. He mentioned how Rolls-Royce has partnered with the DoD on microreactor development efforts through Project Pele. He asked Dr. Gehin to discuss the importance of Project Pele and the actions that Idaho National Laboratory is taking to bring microreactor innovation to the commercial market.
  • Dr. Gehin explained that Project Pele Mobile Microreactor and Perform Demonstration is a DoD project to develop a mobile microreactor. He indicated that this Project’s microreactor is being developed and designed by several private companies (including Rolls-Royce). He also noted how this microreactor will be tested at Idaho National Laboratory. He further mentioned how the fuel that will be used to support this microreactor had been developed through U.S. Department of Energy R&D programs. He stated that the U.S. Department of Energy is working to support Project Pele and is hoping that it can support additional innovations within the nuclear energy space.

Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX):

• Rep. Weber discussed how Waste Control Specialists in Andrews, Texas is currently treating, storing, and disposing nuclear waste. He asked Mr. Cohen to discuss how nuclear waste recycling can help to address the problem of nuclear waste storage and provide a way to produce valuable nuclear fuel and isotopes.
  • Mr. Cohen stated that he is not an expert on nuclear waste recycling. He remarked that there exists an opportunity to harvest remaining energy from spent nuclear fuel. He questioned the extent to which nuclear waste recycling will reduce the total volume of nuclear waste. He suggested that Dr. Gehin would be better suited to answer Rep. Weber’s question.
  • Dr. Gehin discussed how Idaho National Laboratory has been conducting research on nuclear waste recycling for a long time. He testified that the Idaho National Laboratory is recycling fuel from the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II) to produce HALEU. He remarked that it has historically not been economical to recycle nuclear waste because uranium has been very cheap. He stated however that full continuous recycling of nuclear waste will significantly reduce high-level nuclear waste. He recommended that the U.S. pursue research to improve the economics of nuclear waste recycling and to guard against nuclear proliferation risks.
• Rep. Weber then highlighted how the canisters that hold nuclear waste are very robust and can survive train crashes. He lastly asked Dr. Gehin to provide his thoughts on the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.
  • Dr. Gehin remarked that the challenges associated with the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository are political in nature. He noted however that this proposed nuclear waste repository has not undergone the full regulatory review process and commented that pursuing such a review process could be valuable.

Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA):

• Rep. Allen predicted that the U.S.’s energy needs will “dramatically” increase and asserted that nuclear energy will play a major role in satisfying these needs. He stated that nuclear energy is clean, affordable, and safe and expressed support for expanding the use of commercial nuclear energy. He mentioned how his Congressional District contains Plant Vogtle and noted how the construction of two units at this Plant constitute the first nuclear reactors under construction in the U.S. in more than 30 years. He indicated that the completion of the construction of these two units will result in Plant Vogtle becoming the largest single generator of clean energy within the U.S. He applauded this construction effort and expressed hope that this effort can inform the future construction of nuclear energy facilities. He specifically commended Southern Company for its work to construct the new units at Plant Vogtle. He stated however that this construction effort at Plant Vogtle had cost more than anticipated. He expressed concerns that many companies might avoid large nuclear energy projects due to their cost uncertainty. He asked Dr. Gehin to address how the U.S. could use the lessons learned from the recent construction effort at Plant Vogtle to support the construction of future nuclear energy facilities. He expressed particular interest in identifying lessons for better predicting investment costs and reducing capital risks.
  • Dr. Gehin remarked that Plant Vogtle’s construction effort can provide lessons for future nuclear plant projects regarding construction planning, finalization of plant designs, and the functioning of regulatory processes. He also mentioned how there are nuclear plants being built outside of the U.S. and stated that the U.S. should work to learn lessons from the construction of these plants. He lamented that the U.S. is not currently engaged in any additional nuclear plant construction efforts. He commented that this diminishes the U.S.’s ability to capitalize on the labor productivity gained from the Plant Vogtle construction project.
• Rep. Allen expressed agreement with Dr. Gehin’s response and stated that the U.S.’s lack of nuclear facility construction activity has limited the development of its nuclear facility construction workforce. He mentioned how labor force and training issues and inefficiencies in modular fabrication had caused construction challenges for Plant Vogtle’s new units. He asked Dr. Gehin to indicate whether these issues will also impact the construction of new SMRs.
  • Dr. Gehin answered affirmatively and stated that the U.S. is learning lessons from the Plant Vogtle construction effort that can help to address the aforementioned issues. He also discussed how factory fabrication is being increasingly used to produce smaller reactors, which has reduced construction inefficiencies. He further stated that smaller reactors require less capital, which reduces the risks associated with construction cost overruns.

Rep. Troy Balderson (R-OH):

• Rep. Balderson noted how Dr. Gehin had asserted that nuclear reactor schedules and fee structures should be reflective of the scale and complexity of nuclear reactor designs. He asked Dr. Gehin to address how these fee structures can be improved to encourage nuclear reactor demonstrations and investments.
  • Dr. Gehin first remarked high fees and costs are more likely to impact the construction of SMRs than the construction of large nuclear facilities. He stated that nuclear reactor fee structures should be commensurate to the risks posed by a proposed nuclear reactor. He also mentioned how there are costs and fees associated with pursuing nuclear regulatory processes, including pre-application and meeting costs. He suggested that these costs and fees could be offset, which would reduce barriers to nuclear projects seeking to undergo the regulatory approval process.
• Rep. Balderson then discussed how there exists a significant global market for nuclear energy. He asked Mr. Harrell to address the importance of having the U.S. remain a global leader in new and innovative nuclear energy technologies.
  • Mr. Harrell called it imperative that the U.S. remain a global leader in new and innovative nuclear energy technologies. He stated that many countries are very interested in pursuing nuclear energy technologies and warned that these countries will partner with Russia or China if the U.S. does not work with them. He mentioned how Third Way estimates that the global nuclear market can be $360 billion annually by 2050. He remarked that the U.S. should seek to dominate this market and stated that the U.S. commercial nuclear energy industry is well positioned to compete in this market. He commented that U.S. leadership in the global nuclear market would provide it with economic and energy security benefits.
• Rep. Balderson then discussed how U.S. exports of clean natural gas to developing nations have strong environmental benefits. He asked Mr. Harrell to discuss the benefits that nuclear energy exports could provide.
  • Mr. Harrell noted how the International Energy Agency (IEA) had called on the world to double its use of nuclear energy by 2050 to meet carbon emissions reduction goals. He asserted that the exportation of nuclear energy would provide a major economic opportunity for the U.S.

Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX):

• Rep. Pfluger recounted his recent participation in the Congressional Delegation trip to Europe and noted how both Poland and the Czech Republic had emphasized the importance of energy security. He commended these countries for working to reduce their reliance on Russian energy sources. He then discussed how U.S. demand for electricity is likely to grow in response to electric vehicle (EV) mandates. He asked Mr. Cohen to address how nuclear energy can be used to satisfy the expected increase in U.S. demand for electricity.
  • Mr. Cohen remarked that vehicle electrification, industrial electrification, and underlying economic growth will likely require the U.S. to double or triple its electricity production over the next three decades. He also stated that this electricity production will need to have no carbon emissions if the U.S. seeks to meet its climate change goals. He further asserted that the U.S. will need to replace its existing fossil fuel resources to meet these climate change goals. He remarked that the aforementioned dynamics will thus necessitate the U.S. to pursue significant energy reforms. He noted how France had been able to decarbonize its electricity grid within a 15-to-17-year timeframe through repeatedly building nuclear facilities with standardized designs. He estimated that the U.S. could meet 30 percent and 40 percent of these new electricity production needs if it aggressively pursues significant construction of nuclear facilities with standardized designs.
• Rep. Pfluger interjected to comment that Mr. Cohen’s recommended increase in nuclear facility construction would be significant. He then asked Mr. Cohen to indicate whether nuclear energy provides baseload energy capabilities.
  • Mr. Cohen answered affirmatively.
• Rep. Pfluger stated that nuclear energy provides reliable, affordable, and secure energy. He then raised concerns that the U.S.’s failure to support the deployment of nuclear energy will result in other countries leading efforts to deploy nuclear energy. He contended that the U.S. must export its nuclear energy work for both security and climate change reasons. He asked the witnesses to discuss the consequences that would materialize if the U.S. fails to export its nuclear energy work.
  • Mr. Harrell discussed how the U.S. is planning to build some SMRs in Romania and highlighted how this partnership had led Romania to cancel its planned nuclear reactor projects with China. He noted how Romania had been concerned that its planned nuclear reactor projects with China would provide China with undue influence over the country. He remarked that U.S. exports of nuclear energy will support domestic U.S. industries and spread affordable, clean, reliable, and secure energy across the world.
• Rep. Pfluger then asked the witnesses to address how the U.S. should approach the issue of nuclear waste storage and to provide recommendations for developing a permanent storage solution for nuclear waste.
  • Dr. Gehin noted how the U.S. is currently pursuing a consent-based approach for interim nuclear waste storage. He stated that the U.S. will likely also use a consent-based approach for long-term nuclear waste storage. He remarked however that the U.S. will require a permanent repository to store its long-term nuclear waste.
• Rep. Pfluger indicated that his question period time had expired.

Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA):

• Rep. Carter expressed excitement regarding the prospects for nuclear energy and commented that nuclear energy will provide the U.S. with reliable, clean, and secure baseload power. He highlighted how his state of Georgia has the first two nuclear reactors in decades that will go online. He mentioned how there have been 31 nuclear reactors that have commenced construction since beginning of 2017 and noted how 27 of these reactors have been either Russian or Chinese. He asserted that the U.S. must support nuclear reactor construction efforts both domestically and abroad. He expressed optimism however regarding the NRC’s recent approval of the first advanced SMR design and the recent breakthroughs in nuclear fusion technology. He also applauded how venture capitalists are pursuing nuclear energy projects. He stated however that the U.S. has been failing to sufficiently invest in nuclear energy projects and technologies in recent years. He noted how the U.S. nuclear reactor market is valued between $500 billion and $750 billion over the next ten years and contended that the U.S. must have a strong position in this market. He mentioned how he and Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA) had introduced the Global Nuclear Energy Assessment and Cooperation Act to bolster the U.S.’s nuclear energy sector. He indicated that this legislation would prohibit the U.S. from importing nuclear fuels from hostile foreign nations (including Russia and China) and establish the International Nuclear Reactor Export and Innovation Branch. He explained that this Branch will be located within the NRC and will support nuclear energy training and the sharing of U.S. nuclear energy expertise with U.S. allies. He warned that Russia and China are using their foreign nuclear energy assistance as a form of leverage with the countries receiving the assistance. He asked Mr. Harrell to indicate whether the U.S. has a comprehensive idea of all of the countries that want to pursue nuclear energy projects and that would be amenable to partnering with the U.S. on these efforts.
  • Mr. Harrell noted how about 50 countries have expressed interest in either starting nuclear energy programs or growing nuclear energy programs. He commented that the U.S. has an “immense” opportunity to partner with these countries.
• Rep. Carter asked Mr. Harrell to address how a global nuclear energy strategy (such as the one outlined in the Global Nuclear Energy Assessment and Cooperation Act) would benefit the U.S.
  • Mr. Harrell expressed support for efforts to harmonize nuclear regulatory licenses across countries and jurisdictions. He elaborated that the U.S. should work to make the NRC’s standards translate to foreign countries. He stated that this license harmonization would provide the U.S.’s nuclear energy industry with easier access to global markets.
• Rep. Carter emphasized the need for the U.S. to share its nuclear energy expertise with foreign countries. He then asked the witnesses to address how the standards of the U.S. nuclear energy industry compare to the standards of the Chinese and Russian nuclear energy industries.
  • Dr. Gehin commented that he lacked deep knowledge of the standards of the Chinese and Russian nuclear energy industries. He remarked that U.S. nuclear facilities have the highest capacity factors and are the best economically run facilities. He stated that the U.S.’s existing nuclear fleet is the leading nuclear fleet in the world.
  • Mr. Cohen mentioned how his organization had asked a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) engineer to review the operations of Chinese-built nuclear power plants. He testified that this MIT engineer had found that western safety standards were being applied for these nuclear power plants and had expressed general confidence in their safety.