▶ 0:12:27This hearing of the subcommittee on economic growth, energy policy, and regulatory affairs will come to order. Welcome everyone to this hearing. Without objection, the chair may declare a recess at any time. I recognize myself for an opening statement. A new age for nuclear power has started, led by President Trump's four recent executive orders on nuclear energy and congressional action to reinvigorate the nuclear industry.
▶ 0:12:52President Trump's orders call for permitting reform and the reduction of overburdensome regulations from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has become a slowmoving bureaucratic mess, constraining and delaying expansion of US nuclear power deployment for decades. Under President Trump's orders, the NRC must rule on reactor license applications within 18 months, a dramatic shift from the ambiguous open-ended timelines of the past.
▶ 0:13:20President Trump's orders also promote expanding domestic mining, enrichment of uranium and other reactor fuels, and nuclear nuclear fuel recycling. These groundbreaking actions will power United States energy independence and provide a secure and reliable US electrical g grid. Something that we must obtain as the AI revolution places surging demands on our electricity capacity.
▶ 0:13:47At the heart of nuclear power resurgence are two key innovations, small and micro modular reactors. These new reactors promise the US will have a strong answer to future energy demands. They will be more ca capital effective, more efficient, and more scalable for both on and off-rid sites here in the United States.
▶ 0:14:09Moreover, they offer enhanced safety features, eliminate the risk of meltdowns, and can use recycled fuel from other reactors. The Department of Energy predicts that 12% of electricity consumption in the United States in the year 2028 will come from data centers which require constant and consistent electricity.
▶ 0:14:30And the Energy Information Agency recently projected that the US power consumption will reach all-time highs this year and next in part due to AI and data center demand. Nuclear power is the answer to data cent's growing appetite for stable energy. I recently toured two prototype micro modular reactors being developed here in the United States. I can confidently say the technology is ready.
▶ 0:14:56What is holding nuclear back is the ownorous and capital ext intensive regulatory permitting burden placed on nuclear energy expansion. Under the Trump administration, the federal government is waking up to the roadblock that nuclear power has faced for decades. The federal government, not technology, has been in the way.
▶ 0:15:17Congress should and will be watching for the fruits of the administration's actions and eager to cooperate in achieving this lasting Nuclear power in the age of SMRs and MMRs isn't just safe, it's essential. It is our best shot at securing clean, reliable American energy independence. And with that, I yield to Ranking Member Frost for his opening statement. Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair, and thank you so much for the witnesses for being here today.
▶ 0:15:47Um, I'm glad that we're discussing the potential of nuclear energy. Um, with our climate in crisis, we have to get over our addiction of fossil fuels and diversifying our energy mix is essential for our national security and bringing down the cost of energy for Americans. Um, I believe nuclear is part of that solution. According to one study, replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power has prevented almost 2 million deaths worldwide from air pollution as well as 64 gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions.
▶ 0:16:17We're lucky that nuclear power has a strong safety record in the United States. However, though, this does not mean that it's inherently safe. It means that the rules and regulations that prevent a nuclear accident have helped us keep us safe for more than 45 years.
▶ 0:16:34The Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the NRC is the independent agency responsible for protecting public health and safety by regulating nuclear reactors and the safety requirements it sets are considered the global gold standard for a reason. Before the United States became the world leader nuclear safety regulation, loosely supervised government contractors exposed workers and the public to vast quantities of poorly stored radioactive waste at facilities across the country.
▶ 0:17:02Our government failed at protecting our people and exposed many communities to harm. Take for example the families who lived and worked around the um Hanford nuclear production facility in the in Washington state. In the era prior to effective regulation, farm workers like Maria Nia Nagasio and her family would drink from and bathe in river contaminated by waste from the nearby reactors and plutonium facility fac uh processing facilities.
▶ 0:17:30the eight crops um that were poisoned um uh that were poisoned uh by these facilities as well. Maria's mother died of cancer at 60 and tumors developed in both her brothers and her son's heads. We are living um as as one government website explains, Maria's family, quote, and thousands of other farm workers were likely victims of the effects of radiation from the Hanford nuclear facility. End quote.
▶ 0:17:56We're still living with the legacy of government mismanagement and corporate um issues as it relates to nuclear. Um but look also internationally as well. Look at the 2011 Fukushima reactor disaster in Japan. The incident forced more than 150,000 people to evacuate their homes and the ongoing uh decontamination efforts are projected to continue for decades.
▶ 0:18:19actually in my first term as a new member of Congress, I had the opportunity to travel to Fukushima um and spent the day there with a radiation suit on and a guy counter, but I learned about the lessons that Japan has learned um from that disaster and uh how they're forging forward, especially as it relates to SMRs. I'm not here to fearonger. I'm not an anti-nuclear person, but the lessons from history are clear. The nuclear industry must be well regulated.
▶ 0:18:48Only then can nuclear energy play a role in powering our economy, fighting the climate crisis, and reducing deaths from fossil fuel pollution. Predictably, the Trump administration is putting these possibilities in jeopardy by crippling the NRC and directing the agency to literally rubber stamp quote rubber stamp nuclear projects to get them done as soon as possible.
▶ 0:19:09We should be asking whether or not the country or even the nuclear power industry really benefits from a lot of the administration's wholesale attack on the people and rules that make America's independent nonpartisan nuclear safety regulators the envy of the world. The Trump administration should ask itself whether it wants to be responsible for for big disasters that could happen when we talk about Fukushima, what happened in Hanford, when we can instead expand our nuclear power capacity without exposing Americans to more danger.
▶ 0:19:39Instead of rubber stamping new reactors, we should be looking at promoting innovative ideas. How can we use modeling and simulation to strengthen the license licensing applications and safely streamline the process for proven standardized technologies? I hope that today um along with our witnesses we can shed light on smart next steps that don't involve burning to the ground structures that keep us safe.
▶ 0:20:02Often time when we talk about streamlining and making things faster, the knee-jerk reaction is, well, let's get rid of a lot of the regulations that have kept Americans safe for years and years and years, which can put communities, especially small communities that don't have the resources and the big lawyers to be able to advocate on their own behalf against big nuclear uh companies, uh, puts them at risk and takes power away from especially small communities across the country. Instead of that being the knee-jerk reaction, how about looking at how we can streamline our processes, our processes?
▶ 0:20:33I would suggest that our next hearing on this topic also include a witness from the Department of Energy's nuclear energy advanced modeling and simulation program and the Oakidge Advanced Modeling and Simula uh Oakidge National Lab to talk about their work in bringing technology to bear on how a safely how to safely accelerate the process of deploying advanced nuclear energy technologies.
▶ 0:20:55Um, also maybe no one from the Trump administration um is here to defend its policies because they know that a lot of the things they've done um to the NRC are indefensible. And in the words of former commissioner chair uh of a former commissioner chairman, Trump's actions are quote a guillotine to the nation's nuclear safety system end quote. Um and I I think this is really important. It could actually do nuclear a huge disservice in deregulating up the wazu just to rubber stamp stuff and move it forward.
▶ 0:21:25Something happens it can put us back decades and decades and decades especially when we talk about public opinion which can already be fraught on subjects like this. Um when I agree we do need to move faster but we have to move faster in a very careful way and so we should be looking at how we can keep our nuclear project approval process strong.
▶ 0:21:45Um but we also have to put the working people of this country above um greed and and and you know folks who are threatening to poison our nuclear power industry for decades to come by taking too many steps back. And so I hope we can have that holistic view of this issue in this hearing but also as we move forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Gentlemen yields back.
▶ 0:22:08I'm pleased to welcome our stellar panel of witnesses who each bring their tremendous experience and expertise to bring valuable conversations here today. I'd first like to welcome Alex Epstein who is the president and founder of the Center for Industrial Progress. Next, we have Joshua Smith, the energy policy lead at the Abundance Institute. And lastly, we have Steven G. Burns, former chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
▶ 0:22:36And I want to say thank you for taking time to join us here today. If you could please stand. Pursuant to committee rule 9G, the witnesses will please stand and raise their right hand. Do you solemnly swear to affirm that the testimony that you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you, God. Let the record show that all of the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. We appreciate you being here today.
▶ 0:23:05And just to as a reminder, we have read your written statements. Um you have an opportunity to um have five minutes. When you when the light turns yellow, um it's time to, you know, wrap up and when it turns red um it's time to close. And with that, I now recognize Mr. Epstein for his opening statement.
▶ 0:23:30Thank you. Uh whenever we talk about abundant nuclear energy including SMRs uh we need to recognize that the first step is for government to stop doing the immense harm it's actively doing. And this harm is harm that's provably gutted nuclear's potential for decades. It's important to recognize that in the 70s clean safe nuclear power and it was very safe.
▶ 0:23:54It was it was the safest form of energy in history even back then became affordable and it quickly grew to 20% of American electrical power with the potential to get far more affordable and plentiful. But crushing irrational regulation, including the way the NRC was set up, made nuclear expensive or impossible to build. Now, fortunately, Congress has taken some significant steps toward unleashing nuclear with the bipartisan advance act.
▶ 0:24:21In my testimony today, I I want to focus on how the NRC can act quickly on the Advance Act uh in a way consistent with the recent presidential EOS, but happy to answer any questions also about what should be in future legislation since I think there's a lot that can be improved on the Advance Act. But I want to give you my my top four recommendations for what the NRC can do within the current law. And all of these will make nuclear abundant without compromising safety.
▶ 0:24:48Um so one is the NRC should strip out the many inefficiencies in its licensing prog uh process. So through the advance act, Congress has rightly required the NRC's mission to include getting reactors built efficiently in addition to ensuring they're safe. And recently the NRC has issued guidance uh to its offices on how to implement the new mission statement. Uh but this needs to be done very aggressively.
▶ 0:25:11So, the NRC should comb through their licensing process, determine what is truly needed to make plant safe, and strip out all the time consuming portions that don't help with safety, such as months being wasted on mandatory quote unquote uncontested hearings where no one even objects, but you have to, you know, you might delay it by 6 months.
▶ 0:25:29uh within six months of now if if the NRC pursues this, it could publish a step-by-step licensing map showing the legal purpose, decision criteria, maximum review clock, an NRC official responsible for each stage, plus an online dashboard so applicants and investors can see progress in real time. Uh number two is, by the way, the clock isn't showing for me, so I don't know if there's any way that can be indicated. Oh, it is. Okay, thank you. The NRC should use the general EIS's by default.
▶ 0:25:58So, Congress through the advance act has rightly directed the nuclear regulatory commission to switch to general environmental impact statements, GEIS's, which is a single environmental review for standardized reactor design. And this means it can be used over and over for identical designs, which allows you to even if the first thing is expensive to build, the next one, the next one, the next one get cheaper and cheaper to build.
▶ 0:26:19So this the current multi-year process of just doing this EIS's over and over and over is one of the main reasons why even the interest from all the delays in a plant can become over 30% of the capital cost of a project. So the um what the NRC can do specifically is promulgate a rulem to make GIS as the default uh particularly for standardized SMR design so we don't have all this duplicative uh review and it can start action on this within 90 days.
▶ 0:26:46Number three is the NRC should replace what's called L&T and Delara with science-based radiation limits. So, President Trump's recent EO, one of the most important parts of these EOS are rightly instructing the NRC to re-evaluate what's called the linear no threshold or L&T model that falsely assumes that there's no safe dose of radiation, which is definitely not the case.
▶ 0:27:08And it also has some it's coupled with something called uh the current policy is coupled with as low as reasonably achievable ALAR that leads to limitless pseudo safety restrictions. So LNT and ARAR have resulted in a public radiation dose that's 50 times stricter than what science shows is safe. And this just imposes huge unnecessary costs with absolutely no benefit. And it's a big reason why nuclear has become 10 times more expensive than it needs to be.
▶ 0:27:36So the NRC what it can specifically do is fasttrack a national academyy's review of L&T lowd dose radiation science and if they do that properly I think the literature is pretty clear L&T is bogus and they can have a real science-based threshold that they can set which will keep nuclear safe but allow it to be uh a lot more efficient. Uh finally the NRC should open nuclear innovation zones on federal lands.
▶ 0:28:01So the uh the recent EOS rightly encouraged the testing of nuclear reactors on federal lands which would allow private developers to quickly iterate designs and run safety tests without waiting years. Uh what DOE and DoD can do is formally designate nuclear innovation zones on federal land. And specifically the NRC can issue guidance confirming that data collected on these sites will satisfy what's called performance-based safety testing requirements of the regulatory code part 53.
▶ 0:28:28And this can just dramatically dramatically uh expedite things. So we'd love to go deep on any of these things, but basically if the administration implements these four reforms, we will have just as much or more safety and we'll have much more rapid progress in nuclear. Thank you.
▶ 0:28:43Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Smith for his opening statement.
▶ 0:28:47Thank you, Chairman Burlington and Mr. Frost, members of the committee. My name is Josh Smith and I'm the energy policy lead for the Abundance Institute. We are a missiondriven nonprofit dedicated to creating the cultural and policy environment necessary for emerging technologies to thrive and drive widespread human prosperity. My three core points to you today are first energy is fundamental for prosperity.
▶ 0:29:10Regulatory failures hold back the nuclear industry and third that state policymakers are anxious to play a role in America's new atomic age. First, prosperity is energyintensive. America's economic growth, technological progress, and improved quality of life all require more energy, not less. A world of energy abundance is a world of opportunity for industry, for families, and for national strength. Since the first reactors lit up, nuclear power has played a role in this story, but has yet to reach its full potential.
▶ 0:29:40Second, regulatory failures hold back the nuclear industry. Every discussion of nuclear power's future should start from a simple historical fact. For decades, American engineers built nuclear swiftly, cheaply, and safely. Connecticut Yankee in 1968 was built for about a billion dollars in today's terms, and in about 5 years. This trio of swift, safe, and cheap was the norm. Nuclear struggles today aren't inherent to the technology.
▶ 0:30:08They are the product of outdated, unfit, and counterproductive regulations. Major barriers include AR and L&T standards which impose costs above uh any kind of offsetting safety benefits, inflexible NRC frameworks that prevent innovation, and nuclear's risk being widely misunderstood. For example, there was no radiation caused deaths associated with three-mile islands release. The Chernobyl disaster is impossible with modern uh reactor designs and measured in deaths per terowatt hours of electricity production.
▶ 0:30:37Nuclear is about 800 times safer than coal and 100 times safer than gas generation. Finally, fears about nuclear waste are overblown. A person's lifetime nuclear waste is about the size of a coffee cup or a little bit smaller than this water bottle. All US commercial nuclear waste could fit on a football field less than 10 yards deep. and much of that could be recycled for small modular and advanced reactor styles. Policymakers should also not forget the interconnected nature of electricity policy challenges.
▶ 0:31:08Even with ideal NRC reforms, nuclear projects will be bogged down in the same transmission, interconnection, and permitting reform bottlenecks that strangle all US large-scale infrastructure. For example, it takes on average 10 years to build a transmission line. Yet only three of that is actual construction and seven is related paperwork and permitting problems. Interconnection timelines similarly add years of delay.
▶ 0:31:31Consider that Governor Josh Shapiro had to personally intervene and ask the PGM grid operators to expedite the reconnection of Three-Mile Island reactor. There's indisputable merit in this restart. Yet only in broken systems does a project require a governor to personally intervene. Free entry in the energy system is fundamentally broken. Nuclear entrepreneurs can't succeed in a system that blocks entry before shovels hit the dirt.
▶ 0:31:57Licensing, permitting, and interconnection are all clogged arteries in need of reform alongside nuclear regulations. The core lesson is that we need to not just improve nuclear regulations, but streamline permitting and grid interconnection to enable nuclear power and ensure an affordable and reliable energy supply. Next, states are ready for a new atomic age. In the past, governors and state lawmakers played gatekeepers almost universally for ill.
▶ 0:32:22For example, Senator Harry Reid's opposition to storing waste at Yuckah Mountain set the tone for today's conversations. Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakus opposed the start of the Seabbrook plant in neighboring New Hampshire and added about three years of delay to the project. Today, governors and state legislators are leading the opposite charge, pushing to enable nuclear power in their states. Over 250 nuclear- related bills were introduced in state legislatores over the last two years. States are now collaborating on nuclear development.
▶ 0:32:51Leaders in Utah, my home, like Governor Spencer Cox and many members of the Utah legislature work every day to attract and promote nuclear development in the state. Finally, remember that safe safe, swift, and cheap nuclear is possible with simple regulatory reform. Ushering in the new atomic age requires tackling the misperceptions about nuclear power's risks and fixing its failing nuclear regulatory system. Returning to a world where nuclear power is swift, safe, and cheap is not just entirely possible.
▶ 0:33:20It is a living American memory. Fixing these problems will lower energy costs for your constituents, promote a reliable electricity grid, and drive continued improvements in human welfare. Thank you.
▶ 0:33:31Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Burns for his opening statement. Uh thank you again. The nuclear industry unlike many was born regulated. From the very beginning as President Eisenhower's vision of the peaceful atom was realized a strong regulator was deemed essential to ensuring public health and safety through rigorous licensing and oversight the United States.
▶ 0:33:53That role was initially assigned to the Atomic Energy Commission which under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, still the premier piece of legislation in this area, established the licensing framework for civilian applications of nuclear energy.
▶ 0:34:08Concern over the combination of both promotional as well as regulatory responsibilities within the Atomic Energy Commission led to the reforms 50 years ago that established the NRC as an independent regulator and assign promotion and develop development to what is now the Department of Energy.
▶ 0:34:27Um the convention on nuclear safety, the international legal instrument that was adopted after the Chernobyl accident and to which the United States is a party e emphasizes the importance of separation of the regulatory and promotional roles. The push and pull over the efficacy and appropriateness of the licensing process and the effective focus on the safety review has been with us since the dawn of civilian energy in the 19 nuclear energy in the 1950s.
▶ 0:34:58There's always room to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the regulatory process and adapted to the evolution of nuclear technologies and their implementation. Recognizing that past and current commissioners and technical staff have set in motion changes to reduce regulatory burden and speed the development. Some of these actions have been at the NRC's own initiative. Others have been endorsed and encouraged by the Congress, such as the Advanced Act signed into law last year.
▶ 0:35:27The NRC has protected the health and safety of the of the American public for 50 years without a single civilian reactor radiation related death. and the lessons of the Three-Mile Island accident as well as other incidents have been in uh absorbed into the regulatory process to ensure the continued safety of of our The current administration established ambitious goals to increase nuclear energy capacity by I think of some 300%
▶ 0:35:58by the year 2050. The recent executive orders proposed significant changes in pro regulatory processes. Some basically endorsing the advance acts provisions. Um but nuclear uh excuse me um the what it focuses on is a wholesale revision of safety regulations shortening schedules for new react reviews by while at the same time suggesting the downsizing in the NRC.
▶ 0:36:26While the orders mention safety, the focus appears to be primarily reducing regulation and accelerating licensing. One significant nuclear safety event could derail the entire effort as was seen after the Three-Mile Island accident. The commitment to nuclear safety and inherence to the principles of good regulation have resulted the United States safely maintaining the largest fleet of nuclear reactors in the world and the safety standards that the International Nuclear Committee strives to meet.
▶ 0:36:56I do have concerns about unintended safety consequences that a reduced NRC independence and a scheduled-driven regulatory paradigm threatened to bring and the loss of public confidence that can befall a safety agency is a risk when expediency is seen to be given the pri priority.
▶ 0:37:15While I support continued focus on increasing NRC efficiency and we can note that a number of things the agency has done recently have come under schedule and at reduced schedules of uh within two years or 18 months. Great care must be taken in streamlining licensing and in the regulatory process to preclude erosion of high levels of nuclear safety.
▶ 0:37:39For the revised framework to deliver reliable power, clear guidance on safety is paramount, avoiding any mixed message that speed over over safety. I am concerned that steps to undercut the independence of the NRC and the commitment to ensuring safety safety could undermine the reputation of US reactor vendors in the rest of the world.
▶ 0:38:03A design license in the US now carries a stamp of approval that uh many that can facilitate licensing elsewhere, including many countries that are are embarking on a new nuclear program. If it becomes clear that the NRC has been forced to cut corners on safety and operate in a less transparent manner, reactor vendors will be hurt. The industry is helped by the fact it has a strong independent re regulator behind it.
▶ 0:38:30uh in some the administration's objectives will fail if it does not encourage a healthy nuclear safety culture with safety as a high priority. Those this is critical for the operational success and for preserving the United States worldclass reputation. Thank you.
▶ 0:38:50Thank you, Mr. Burns. And I I find it I I was finding it ironic as I was sitting here listening your testimony that your name is Mr. for birds. And you I'm sure you've heard that joke before.
▶ 0:39:00Uh yes, I have. And in fact, I was in a French airport once and I realized that they had given me the wrong luggage tag and I heard the u the woman at the desk call down to the luggage handler and he said uh she's the name and he said com Burns. I said yes. Yes. Like Mr. Burns. He was referring to the Simpsons. So anyway, yes, it was uh it's been a kind of a joke over the years. Good one.
▶ 0:39:27Well, thank you for Thank you for that. All right, I now recognize myself for five minutes and I'll begin with Mr. Smith. I was recently told by one company based here in the United States that they will have a fully functioning MMR abroad in the next year. They specifically stated that that they couldn't accomplish that in the United States that um that they have to go on foreign soil to demonstrate to the American public and the government that their technology is ready.
▶ 0:39:58Um what's holding back companies like that from from doing this in the United States?
▶ 0:40:05Thank you. Fundamentally the problem is we have too many barriers between people who want to build and their ability to put shovels in the ground and put up structures. So take one example uh it's important that we do continued modeling. It's important that we continue doing extensive testing but we also need to do real life testing rather than just rely on the data that uh we currently use.
▶ 0:40:26In particular, uh, one of the exciting recent state level endeavors is as Governor Spencer Cox in Utah signed an memorandum of understanding with Valor Atomics to develop an SMR within Utah by July 4th, 2026. I just got back from the American Legislative Exchange Council meetings with state legislators from across the country. Every single energy conversation was pulled in by some gravitational force to talk about nuclear policy and what they could do.
▶ 0:40:54There's extensive interest and opportunity, but the states need to actually be allowed to lead.
▶ 0:41:00I'm going to jump to one of my questions then. Um, regarding the states, um, the can you how would they be better suited than than the federal government for for regulating this.
▶ 0:41:14One of the key differences between the designs of the 60s and 70s uh, and today is is they're very very different. So there's little need for containment structures in some of these new designs. And part of the problem with having a lot of expertise at the NRC is simply that they have a hammer. They see everything as a nail. And so we have a problem where new companies come in, they don't need a containment chamber or containment facility for their design.
▶ 0:41:41And yet the NRC prescriptive regulations say thou shalt have one. And so state level interest can develop new rules that avoid this kind of old problem. And we could do some of this at the federal level. Of course, I think there's room for Congress to get involved and spin off new agencies within the NRC or separately entirely to pursue these new designs. States have already taken the right kinds of steps either in Texas has been developing an advanced nuclear working group.
▶ 0:42:07Utah is similarly has an office of an energy development official who's purely devoted to nuclear now in addition to extensive legislative efforts within the state congress. So very exciting uh and lots to do. Thank you. Um, Mr. Epstein, what approach should the United States be taking in in regards to this?
▶ 0:42:27Should we follow the model of the previous administration where we use taxpayer dollars to subsidize this development or um should we let the free market dictate what happens?
▶ 0:42:38Well, definitely free market, but it it it really hinges on how you're approaching the issue of safety. And I really want to push against any idea that the NRC has been a success. The NRC has been one of the greatest failures in in policy history. So we hear things like, "Oh, the NRC was helpful maintaining the nuclear fleet." Well, why are we saying maintaining? It's because they prevented anything from being done.
▶ 0:43:03From 1975 when the NRC was founded until 2023, not one new plant went from conception to completion. So if nuclear is the safest form of energy ever and it was safer than any form of energy before the NRC and the NRC basically criminalized it, that's a failure. So we need to recognize the NRC as it exists is a failure. Now that doesn't mean that it necessarily shouldn't exist. I do believe states have a real role, but we need radical radical reform. So it needs to be done within the law. It needs to be done at the NRC.
▶ 0:43:33In particular, we need some good commissioners. We don't have enough commissioners right now, but we need commissioners who can radically reform the NRC. And we need innovation at the state level because what we really want is abundant energy. If we just do a bunch of subsidies, then we're just going to have another subsidized energy industry. That's not what we need. We want to unleash an unsubsidized energy
▶ 0:43:52And what's what what's happening with the manufacturing of these micro nuclear reactors is that they're eventually wanting to get it to scale. That's the only way that you're going to do this. That's cost-effective. And yet, um, what I'm told is that they have to get these permitted. Each one it would have to go through the same process as if you you're doing a a large-scale nuclear site. Is that correct, Mr. Smith?
▶ 0:44:18I believe so. And the Idaho National Laboratory in uh 20 April 2025 report suggested legislative reforms to enable general licenses. So after you have your first of a kind, you would be able to apply and through some some uh notice and regulatory requirements, you would still be able to apply and build your reactor under a general license. But I believe that INL's advice requires legislative action.
▶ 0:44:42That would only make sense, right? All right. And now recognize for his opening statement.
▶ 0:44:49Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um the Trump administration seems on this like sciencefree deregulation spree. I think it's endangering our health and safety. And look, as our national policy makers, we have to balance multiple interests, including supporting the uh innovation and the developers, but also protecting communities and future generations. Yet, the this the administration's approach to policy to me seems singularly focused on growing profits of executives versus the other side of things.
▶ 0:45:19Um, and you know, we see what's going on right now at the NRC. someone from Doge with zero nuclear energy background has ordered the NRC to quote rubber stamp applications for new nuclear reactors. Now look, I'm excited about the potential of advanced nuclear reactors as part of the solution to our dependence on fossil fuels. But when we're dealing with something as complex as nuclear power generation and as volatile as nuclear fision, speed alone is not the answer.
▶ 0:45:47Although we you know we want we want to be able to streamline things. We want to use technology as best we can. Um, Mr. Burns, the Nuclear Innovation Alliance, which is a nuclear energy industry think tank, wrote, quote, "Undermining NRC's independence is damaging to both long-term US interests to the ongoing work that is required to ensure that nuclear power can provide reliable and clean energy to power the American economy." End quote.
▶ 0:46:12Why is the nuclear industry itself concerned with attacks on the independence of the NRC and uh Trump's attempts at rapid deregulation?
▶ 0:46:23Well, I think Congress, I mean, the the reason is is that, you know, not only historically have we had a a regulatory system, that's the expect that's the expectation under US law as well as I say the international paradigm.
▶ 0:46:39uh but it provides it can provide confidence not I'm going beyond just licensing here I'm going to in terms of the operation and uh accountability of those who operate uh the facilities now granted there are things within the industry itself the institute of nuclear power operations that was founded after the three-mile island accident that does that adds value to that and there's communication between the NRC and INPO uh over the respective work but
▶ 0:47:09that the again there is a need for ensuring public confidence and the role of having a strong regulator has been important to that uh commitment and that role.
▶ 0:47:21Yeah. And and this is damaging the reputation of American reactors and has big potentials of slowing down what we want to do. Um you know we we heard from um Mr. Epstein, one of our witnesses who I've met with with before. Obviously have big disagreements with him on the existence of a climate crisis, but we're talking about something else. Um he mentioned, you know, a timeline of the 1975 and in the 80s when um we saw a downturn, reactors not being built.
▶ 0:47:51Um many cases, many closed. He blames it all on the NRC, but something else might have happened around this time period, too, that might have pushed public sentiment around nuclear to dramatically drop. Do you know what I'm talking about, Mr. Burns?
▶ 0:48:05Well, for to begin with, in terms of what the statistical numbers are, that since the three-mile island accident, uh, something like 51 power reactors came into operation in the United States. Now, granted, since the 1990s, that's three. the two Vogal units and the Wattsbar unit, Wattsbar unit 2. Uh but part of this is what you have is is public confidence.
▶ 0:48:30You have issues with respect to um uh and there was some illusion to this in terms of uh the grid, how the grid is managed uh and the e economics of there that that has been some of it. low natural gas prices, the emergence of of solar and and wind uh uh production and postTMI. And we're seeing that even just today where you're seeing some of the postTMI restrictions on new nuclear having been lifted.
▶ 0:49:00I think like Wyoming is one of the the more recent states and and there are some others. So that public confidence piece combined with other things within the industry itself also contribute in terms of where you didn't have the the the big renaissance in the two early 2000s uh as was uh perhaps planned for.
▶ 0:49:23Yeah. and and and you know nuclear energy by definition I mean it it I I think we have to admit it is a dangerous thing but what makes it safe and what and we want to make it safe is through the policies that we pass the work that's done at taking something that by definition is a dangerous thing and making it safe to use um in in the United States and I think we can look at the fact that the United States I mean we can boast that we haven't had a single civilian reactor related related death in 50 years
▶ 0:49:53of the NRC's existence and that didn't happen by accident. Again, I'm not here to say there's not, you know, that there's we there's nothing we need to do in Congress to help make sure that we streamline it, possibly using modeling, simulation, different things like that so we can move in a faster way um because we want to see this done. Um but this knee-jerk reaction of deregulation again many times can cause unintended consequences of course if god forbid something were to happen. Thank you for the extra time, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
▶ 0:50:21Thank you. Do I now recognize the the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry, for five minutes?
▶ 0:50:27Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the panel for being here. I have the distinct honor of uh representing the district that much of lies in the shadow of the towers, the cooling towers of three Mile Island. I'm also happy to report that it is a vibrant, healthy, and productive uh community in the shadow of Three-Mile Island.
▶ 0:50:50And most of the residents are absolutely thrilled that the jobs will be coming back, that the lights will be coming on, and that the power of three Mile Island will be produced. And I, for one, hope that they will install a second reactor, one of the ones that we're talking about here today on that site that is so well situated for such a facility.
▶ 0:51:13Now, I I can't I can't go on without just noting that my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be concerned about the profits that are made by power companies that engage in constructing and operating nuclear nuclear facilities.
▶ 0:51:30Well, it seems to me over the course of at least the last 10 years, my colleagues on that side of the aisle have promoted and enacted policies that have increased the bills of my constituents, my bosses, the my neighbors, the people I live around, I don't know, maybe tenfold. It's astounding.
▶ 0:51:53They don't seem to care how much citizens pay for electricity and how much renewable, we'll call, we'll be kind, we'll call them renewable energy operators make on government subsidies and mandates because their products simply can't compete in the market. They seem to have no problem with that.
▶ 0:52:14But I I just think it's important that we at least attempt to set the record straight while we're in one of these hearings and have the counter discussion to just assuming that profit is bad, that everybody that runs a nuclear facility is um is dangerous, careless, and doesn't care about the citizens that they serve.
▶ 0:52:35And only people interested in renewables, renewables are willing to give up all their profits, which they're not, and uh and provide lowcost energy to the masses, which they're not that either. As a matter of fact, it's the highest cost energy. And it's also very much more dangerous than nuclear energy. But that having been said, because I'm going on, Mr.
▶ 0:52:56Epstein, the Advance Act um required that the NRC now switch to general environmental impact statements. One of the things that drives what kind of energy produced is how investments when when individuals when concerns invest their money in something, they want to know that they're going to get a return on it.
▶ 0:53:23I hope they get a profit too because they're investing in something and putting their money at risk. That's how things work in America. But putting your money at risk for 15 or 20 years without any without any shity that there's going to be a positive outcome is a detractor from that investment.
▶ 0:53:43And essentially the regulations that are in place now are a deterrent to the advancement of of nuclear energy and and and general production itself.
▶ 0:53:56So, if you could just briefly explain how not doing the same thing over and over and over again for the same st kind of design is going to be helpful to the industry, save the industry money, and in turn save my bosses, citizens of America, my constituents money.
▶ 0:54:16For sure. So, I think it's really important that you raise the issue of of profit because we absolutely want nuclear energy companies to be able to make a profit by competing to provide the lowest cost, most reliable energy just like we want phone manufacturers to be able to make a profit providing the most cost-effective phones, AI people providing the most cost effective AI uh etc. The problems arise, there are two kinds of problems that arise.
▶ 0:54:42One is when you restrict the ability of profit-making entities to compete by not allowing them to do their jobs, which things like having a new environmental impact statement for every nuclear plant, even if it's the exact same thing, that just dramatically increases costs. The other thing that you raised is when you subsidize inferior forms of energy, that also raises costs. We always pay more total, but in particular with solar and wind, it's particularly egregious because what it does is it puts more intermittent unreliable solar and wind uh on the grid.
▶ 0:55:12That doesn't replace the reliable energy. It adds to the cost of reliable energy. It allows them to win all of the market bids. So, they take the money away from the reliable power plants. Reliable power plants get defunded. Can't make a profit. This is why we have a shortage of gas turbines. One of the reasons why nuclear is in bad shape. Uh but we cannot build dispatchable capacity profitably because we've screwed up the markets with subsidies. So the big beautiful bill by far the best thing about it in my opinion was dramatic cuts to these grid destroying price increasing solar and wind subsidies.
▶ 0:55:44Thank you Mr. Chairman.
▶ 0:55:46Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Min for 5
▶ 0:55:49Uh thank you Mr. Chair. appreciate the opportunity to talk about uh green energy innovation and I have long taken an all of the- above approach. Uh when it comes to meeting our nation's energy needs. I would just note in response to last witness uh obviously solar and wind power are intermittent. However, there are these things called batteries. They're getting better and they make the grid much more reliable.
▶ 0:56:11In fact, I would just note for the record that um according to the US Energy Information uh the levelized cost of energy for advanced nuclear power was estimated to be $110 per megawatt hour in 2023 and forecasted to remain the same even with regulatory changes up to the year 2050. Uh by comparison, solar uh is expected to decline from its current cost of $50 per megawatt hour to $25 per megawatt hour.
▶ 0:56:40uh and onshore wind expected to decline from $40 per megawatt hour to $35 per megawatt hour over this same period. Now that being said, I think that there is a place for nuclear energy. Uh and I think that we should be looking for some of the advancements that may happen. I have a company in my district uh Tri Alpha Energy. Uh it is making it is developing clean fusion technology. uh they are hopeful that they can get um actual working prototypes of real power plants on the grid in the next 10 years.
▶ 0:57:10And I know we always talk about clean fusion being on the grid in 10 years, but uh technologies like that do really seem to have promise as we think about how to provide an abundance of energy. Uh but I also want to note that nuclear fishision does present challenges. Uh in just south of my district in Sanopre, we have had a nuclear power plant offline for some years. Uh we still have not figured out what to do with the nuclear waste that it was created there. It is a ticking time bomb.
▶ 0:57:37Uh and we are very those of us who represent regions nearby uh are very concerned that at some point this may leak uh that there are security issues with this waste and unfortunately due to gridlock here in Congress, we have not been able to move that into a safe storage. So it's sitting there just off the beach. U we've seen what's happened for example in Fukushima in Chernobyl. We are very concerned about what might happen there. Uh but I guess um my first question uh is to you Mr. Burns.
▶ 0:58:06Uh we have seen the massive cuts uh formalized later after they were first illegally undertaken uh by Elon Musk and his Doge staff and through executive orders. Massive cuts to our federal government staffing. Um and so we that is of course affected uh the NRC as well. And uh in May, Donald Trump issued a number of executive orders uh requiring the NRC to streamline operations and reduce staff. Uh Mr.
▶ 0:58:33Burns was wondering if you could talk about how this might threaten the safety and effectiveness of the NRC's regulatory review and permitting process uh and how it might affect some of the safety concerns that a number of us have about nuclear fishision.
▶ 0:58:47Okay. Thank thank you for the question. The interesting thing on with respect to the executive order directed to the NRC is that an early draft of it just adopted the the riff language that I think's been you know you you're seeing across the government. The final version indicated well there might be a need for additional staffing in within the uh context of new reactor uh licensing and and regulation.
▶ 0:59:14And I think that is something uh you know fortunately um I hope I hope that it's it's it's adhered to because if you do have you've had first movers coming in over the last few years uh with the you know Chyros X Energy uh some others Abalene Christian coming in uh with respect to new designs but if you have this big wave you're going to need the sta you're going to need the staffing to do those review to do those reviews.
▶ 0:59:43even taking in account efficiencies that might be able to be um uh implemented and and approaches that have been taken u over the number of years now by the NRC to um to effectively do the licensing review. So, I I think that's the a place, you know, I I can't give you any specific figures, but that is a place where you have to, I think, have an open mind if you're really going to uh looking at to get this get these things through.
▶ 1:00:12Um that you have the staffing that is a a challenge uh because you've had an aging, you know, aging staff. Um and so being able to attract uh new staff is very important.
▶ 1:00:25Well staff may in fact increase efficiency. Um, Mr. Smith, my last questions to you. Um, you support an abundance agenda and I think a lot of us, uh, particularly from places like California agree with that approach. Um, at the same time, what we've seen from this administration is efforts to really handicap and eliminate a lot of the supports for clean energy adoption. Meanwhile, in countries like China, we're seeing heavy subsidization of clean energy.
▶ 1:00:52Are they are we brilliant somehow in China, Germany, all of them are getting it wrong or are we doing something here that might hamper clean cheap energy of the future?
▶ 1:01:02I think the right approach and thank you for your question. The right approach for environmentalists is to become free marketeteers from now on. For years we've been hearing and I've been saying and other environmental activists have been saying that solar and wind storage are all getting cheaper. This is true and it's time to concentrate on the real barriers which are about permitting. If you look at EIA projections, the IRA really failed even on its own terms in the sense that it did not spur the growth that green activists wanted.
▶ 1:01:29And the problem is because uh as Reagan said, government likes to tax it until it stops moving and then subsidize it again. The real problem is let's get rid of those regulations, the local sighting barriers. Uh it reforms to NEPA to allow infrastructure of all kinds and those will have extensive benefits for the clean energy goals as well as just simple energy abundance goals. And you see this in places like Texas that have free markets and energy.
▶ 1:01:53Yeah, the federal subsidies are distorting, but you'd still get steel in the ground in places that let people build. I
▶ 1:01:59I appreciate that. And we just had a NEPA hearing in natural resources. I think many of us are concerned, however, that NEPA uh there's one thing to reform, it's another to essentially eliminate it. And I think we're worried about the latter. I will just close with this statement that uh a number of businesses I talked to uh believe that the Chinese are so heavily subsidizing clean energy, batteries, things and related technologies that US companies just can't keep up and that eliminating the clean energy tax credits has essentially conceded that market for generations. Uh with that, I yield back.
▶ 1:02:30Thank you. I request unanimous consent for an additional five minutes of questions evenly distributed between myself and the ranking member without objection. So ordered um Mr.
▶ 1:02:43Epstein um recently I toured a company called Radiant met with the CEO Doug Bernau who is an amazing individual um who who was char challenged by Elon Musk to help to colonize Mars and came to the conclusion the only way to provide electricity get electricity to Mars was through Um, I also met Isaiah Taylor with Velar Atomics,
▶ 1:03:14which is an amazing, very creative company that's using carbon sequestration in their process to combine it with with um with other like with oxygen or hydrogen in order to create jet fuel, which is just mind-blowing. You get electricity and the byproduct is jet fuel.
▶ 1:03:34With that being said, can you can you speak to how the regulatory process for these guys who are doing very creative, very innovative stuff might be stifling to to a to that mindset?
▶ 1:03:47Yeah, I admire these guys for trying because it's just it's so so uh difficult to do things. I mean for all the reasons I mentioned uh the licensing process, it could be difficult to test things. Uh the whole linear no threshold in AR as low as reasonably achievable. So this all these dogmas as I said can be changed and it'll just radically open the frontier for innovation where companies like these can go very quickly from idea to action. Right now there's just an enormous gap between idea to action.
▶ 1:04:17One other thing that needs to change I think is the cultural discussion of nuclear. We heard from ranking member Frost and I think some others that like Three-Mile Island was the problem but as as Scott Perry pointed out like Three-Mile Island uh is not fundamentally a problem. Like the fact that the worst nuclear accident we've had is is something that killed nobody. That should be celebrating nuclear. So we need to stop demonizing nuclear like the Simpsons did. We need to recognize it's fundamentally safe. It's not safe primarily because of regulation.
▶ 1:04:44It's safe because the material cannot explode like combustion
▶ 1:04:48Thank you. One last question, Mr. Smith. Um when I when I speak to them, they they refer to it the 18month period. Can you describe the the dynamic of getting the the permitting process done and why companies that are ready to go today are are having to go through an 18-month
▶ 1:05:05Which 18-month period
▶ 1:05:07for review?
▶ 1:05:08For review. So, I think there's a lot of opportunities to reduce review times. One example is actually the mandatory hearings that Alex mentioned in his testimony as well. So those kinds of reviews don't involve input from the public. And they already cut times from six months to three months by moving from in-person oral hearings to written testimony and and submissions. And there's a lot of opportunities to cut those down and see the kinds of things like Governor Cox wants to see in Utah of we can build something by July 4th, 2026.
▶ 1:05:38we can have test reactors that we don't push companies to the Philippines or outside of the US to test and experiment what used to be and started as an American technology.
▶ 1:05:47Thank you. Recognize ranking member
▶ 1:05:50Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I mean, you know, there's a few things. I mean, you know, one of our colleague, one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle was talking a lot about, you know, picking winners and losers with some of the subsidies we saw in the inflation reduction act. And you know, I've ne never heard him speak about the tons of subsidies that for, you know, over a century we've given to fossil fuels as a country. And you know, I I agree with Representative Min as well.
▶ 1:06:16I mean, the the biggest winner from the big ugly law ripping away a lot of these investments we've made in American companies as it relates to clean energy is China. um when we talk about that entire market. Um the other thing too that I think is really important to keep in mind is we are not I mean I heard this from one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle too. You know you're not we're not here trying to demonize nuclear nuclear companies. None of us are here saying the nuclear companies want to hurt anyone or anything like that.
▶ 1:06:46But there is a balance here between the safety of our people and also moving quickly on this that is it is our job to recognize and keep in mind. And it just it worries me we have people saying well it's 100% there's nothing you know there's nothing wrong with the this and that kind of like what we just heard from Mr. Epstein that creates this environment where we're more open to big issues which again can set us back decades as it relates to nuclear. But Mr. Burns I you know when we heard Mr.
▶ 1:07:15Epstein say that you know nuclear can't explode like combustion combustion can you made a face I just wonder if you have a response to that and just generally curious curious when it comes to human health and safety why are the careful comprehensive regulations and inspections still necessary
▶ 1:07:31well I think my reaction is is that I acknowledge three my island because of design uh and other facilities all didn't we didn't lose the containment there was some concern over it at the at at the time in terms of uh some of the assessment. Um, but what we did, I think what we learned from Three-Mile Island, it it's it's not so much whether someone had died or not. It says, but how do we think about preventing that in the future? We don't want to go down that path.
▶ 1:08:02And yeah, for example, I agree with Chernobyl, a reactor design that would never have been licensed in the in the United in the United States. Uh but again learning it's about learning and a learning culture in terms of what does that what's the significance of that there was for example no emergency preparedness programs uh at prior to the three-mile island accident that that has gone went into effect.
▶ 1:08:30Other ways of in terms of u of you know operator uh particularly operator competence and things like that came into being. And so those are the things you learn and you learn them not just from the big from the big accidents but other things that ha that have happened uh over the years.
▶ 1:08:48We we learn uh in terms of looking at security measures uh after the 911 uh attacks uh which actually had a benefit in terms of what we saw as we evaluated the Fukushima Dichi accident um and things like that.
▶ 1:09:05So it it is this if you want to call it a learning culture uh but partly is assessing where you've been and what that may mean and yeah it also includes saying where am I where am I misfocusing or where do I need to to improve my focus um if I if I could in response to that question with respect to the mandatory hearing uh I and a number of former commissioners have joined uh we've sent a letter in supporting the the the
▶ 1:09:35basically the elimination of the mandatory hearing. But I would what I want to emphasize is that is not NRC's fault. That mandatory hearing has been in the on the books in the Atomic Energy Act since the late 1950s. And part of that was due to a lack of transparency by the Atomic Energy Commission. Thank you, Mr. Straws.
▶ 1:09:56um in terms of not providing the Congress or the general public information about uh the licensing of what was then the Fermy one reactor.
▶ 1:10:08So anyway, I support uh the elimination of mandatory hearing.
▶ 1:10:13Yeah. And possib something to explore a lot further bipartisan way. I yield the
▶ 1:10:18Maybe we can co-sponsor something
▶ 1:10:21All right. In closing, I want to say thank you to our panelists for your testimony here today, and I would like to yield to ranking member Frost for his closing remarks. Thank you so much. Well, um I I appreciate our witnesses for being here as we talk about a extremely important topic.
▶ 1:10:41Um again you know I think I think it's important for people to recognize you know we are not against uh innovation as it relates to nuclear at least the members on this panel but we want to make sure u that safe nuclear energy is is you know part of the the solution on ending our dependency on fossil fuels but this end all beall effort that we're seeing from many actors to completely deregulate to move that forward is just not
▶ 1:11:12um something that I think is good for the industry long term and not good more importantly for our people and our communities and the country. Weakening the NRC's uh reputation and functionality is bad for the industry. It is bad for the population at large. And I very much disagree with some of the actions we've seen with from the administration on attacking the independence of the NRC. I think it's very important. The cost and property, cleanup, and lives when disasters do happen have always been extreme. Let's avoid all this.
▶ 1:11:42Work together. Figure out ways that yes, we can streamline. Yes. Ways we can use technology in a safe way, but not give up a lot of the safety standards that have made us the envy of the world in terms of um uh our licensing and how safe our reactors are. Um thank you. I yield back.
▶ 1:12:01Thank you. I now recognize myself for a closing statement. I want to say thank you Mr. Epste, Mr. Smith, Mr. Burns again for sharing your time with us today, your insights, and your valuable testimony. Today's hearing has made one thing abundantly clear, and that is that advanced nuclear technologies hold tremendous promise for the future of clean, reliable, and secure energy in the United States.
▶ 1:12:26Small modular reactors and micro modular reactors offer scalable, resilient power generation with zero carbon emissions. Their modular design reduces construction timelines, enhances safety, and opens the door to greater deployment of nuclear power in remote and underserved areas, even maybe Mars.
▶ 1:12:49Whether it's to power the industrial base, a rural community, or a critical military installation, the possibilities of application for these new technologies are almost endless. But as we heard today, the greatest obstacle to deployment is not science or engineering. It's government. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must evolve.
▶ 1:13:12The NRC's current licensing framework was built for the traditional gigawatt scale reactors, not for micro or small nuclear. If we want to maintain global leadership in nuclear technology, Congress should take back and and should back the Trump administration's demand for a more agile, riskinformed, and performance-based regulatory approach. Advanced reactors are not a science experiment. They are a competitive advantage for the United States.
▶ 1:13:42But unless we act with urgency, unless we align our regulatory institutions with the pace of innovation, then we risk seeding that advantage to someone else. This subcommittee will continue its oversight of these issues to help assure that that does not happen.
▶ 1:13:58And with that without objection all members will have five legislative days within which to submit material materials and to submit additional written questions for the witnesses which will be forwarded to the witnesses for their response. If there is no further business without objection the subcommittee will stands adjourned.