[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE NEW ATOMIC AGE
ADVANCING AMERICA'S ENERGY FUTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC GROWTH,
ENERGY POLICY, AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 22, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-41
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC(s) NOT AVAILANLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Available on: govinfo.gov, oversight.house.gov or docs.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-715 WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Robert Garcia, California, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Gary Palmer, Alabama Ro Khanna, California
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Pete Sessions, Texas Shontel Brown, Ohio
Andy Biggs, Arizona Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Maxwell Frost, Florida
Pat Fallon, Texas Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Byron Donalds, Florida Greg Casar, Texas
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Jasmine Crockett, Texas
William Timmons, South Carolina Emily Randall, Washington
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Yassamin Ansari, Arizona
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Wesley Bell, Missouri
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Lateefah Simon, California
Nick Langworthy, New York Dave Min, California
Eric Burlison, Missouri Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Eli Crane, Arizona Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Brian Jack, Georgia Vacancy
John McGuire, Virginia
Brandon Gill, Texas
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
James Rust, Deputy Staff Director
Mitch Benzine, General Counsel
Daniel Flores, Senior Counsel
Kyle Martin, Counsel
Daniel Falcone, Professional Staff Member
Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Jamie Smith, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs
Eric Burlison, Missouri, Chairman
Gary Palmer, Alabama Maxwell Frost, Florida, Ranking
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Member
Byron Donalds, Florida Yassamin Ansari, Arizona
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Dave Min, California
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Ro Khanna, California
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. Eric Burlison, U.S. Representative, Chairman................ 1
Hon. Maxwell Frost, U.S. Representative, Ranking Member.......... 2
WITNESSES
Mr. Alex Epstein, President and Founder, Center for Industrial
Progress
Oral Statement................................................... 5
Mr. Joshua Smith, Energy Policy Lead, Abundance Institute
Oral Statement................................................... 7
Mr. Stephen G. Burns (Minority Witness), Senior Visiting Fellow,
Third Way
Oral Statement................................................... 8
Written opening statements and bios are available on the U.S.
House of Representatives Document Repository at:
docs.house.gov.
THE NEW ATOMIC AGE:
ADVANCING AMERICA'S ENERGY FUTURE
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 22, 2025
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:05 p.m., in
room HVC-210, House Visitor Center, Hon. Eric Burlison
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Burlison, Palmer, Perry, Frost,
and Min.
Mr. Burlison. This 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.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ERIC BURLISON REPRESENTATIVE FROM
MISSOURI
Mr. Burlison. 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.
President Trump's orders call for permitting reform and the
reduction of overburdensome regulations from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, which has become a slow-moving
bureaucratic mess, constraining and delaying expansion of U.S.
nuclear power deployment for decades.
Under President Trump's orders, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) must rule on reactor license applications
within 18 months, a dramatic shift from the ambiguous, open-
ended timelines of the past.
President Trump's orders also promote expanding domestic
mining, enrichment of uranium and other reactor fuels, and
nuclear fuel recycling.
These groundbreaking actions will power United States
energy independence and provide a secure and reliable U.S.
electrical grid, something that we must obtain as the AI
revolution places surging demands on our electricity capacity.
At the heart of nuclear power's resurgence are two key
innovations: small and micro modular reactors. These new
reactors promise the United States will have a strong answer to
future energy demands. They will be more capital effective,
more efficient, and more scalable for both on-and off-grid
sites here in the United States.
Moreover, 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 percent of
electricity consumption in the United States in the year 2028
will come from data centers, which require constant and
consistent electricity. And the Energy Information Agency
recently projected that U.S. 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 centers' 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.
What is holding nuclear back is the onerous and capital-
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.
Congress should and will be watching for the fruits of the
Administration's actions and eager to cooperate in achieving
this lasting change.
Nuclear power in the age of small modular reactors (SMR)s
and Micro Modular Reactors (MMR)s is not just safe--it is
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.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER
MAXWELL FROST, REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA
Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you so much for the witnesses for being here
today.
I am glad that we are discussing the potential of nuclear
energy. 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.
I believe nuclear is part of that solution. According to
one study, replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power has
prevented almost two million deaths worldwide from air
pollution as well as 64 gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions.
We are lucky that nuclear power has a strong safety record
in the United States. However, though, this does not mean that
it is 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.
The 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 in 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. Our
government failed at protecting our people and exposed many
communities to harm.
Take for example, the families who lived and worked around
the Hanford Nuclear Production Facility in Washington State.
In the era prior to effective regulation, farm workers like
Maria Nicasio and her family would drink from and bathe in
river contaminated by waste from the nearby reactors and
plutonium processing facilities. They ate crops that were
poisoned by these facilities as well.
Maria's mother died of cancer at 60, and tumors developed
in both her brother's and her son's heads.
We are living, 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.
We are still living with the legacy of government
mismanagement and corporate issues as it relates to nuclear.
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
decontamination efforts are projected to continue for decades.
Actually, in my first term as a new Member of Congress, I
had the opportunity to travel to Fukushima and spent the day
there with a radiation suit on and a Geiger counter. But I
learned about the lessons that Japan has learned from that
disaster and how they are forging forward, especially as it
relates to SMRs.
I am not here to fear-monger. I am not an anti-nuclear
person. But the lessons from history are clear. The nuclear
industry must be well-regulated. Only 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,''--``rubber-stamp''--
nuclear projects to get them done as soon as possible.
We 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 big disasters that could happen, when we
talk about Fukushima or what happened in Hanford, when we can
instead expand our nuclear power capacity without exposing
Americans to more danger.
Instead of rubber-stamping new reactors, we should be
looking at promoting innovative ideas. How can we use modeling
and simulation to strengthen the licensing applications and
safely streamline the process for proven, standardized
technologies?
I hope that today, along with our witnesses, we can shed
light on smart next steps that do not involve burning to the
ground structures that keep us safe.
Often time, when we talk about streamlining and making
things faster, the knee-jerk reaction is, ``Well, let us 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 do not have the resources and
the big lawyers to be able to advocate on their own behalf
against big nuclear companies, 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?
I 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 Oak
Ridge National Lab to talk about their work in bringing
technology to bear on how to safely accelerate the process of
deploying advanced nuclear energy technologies.
Also, maybe no one from the Trump Administration is here to
defend its policies because they know that a lot of the things
they have done to cripple the NRC are indefensible. And in the
words of a former Commissioner Chairman, Trump's actions are,
``a guillotine to the Nation's nuclear safety system.''
And I think this is really important. It could actually do
nuclear a huge disservice in deregulating up the wazoo just to
rubber-stamp stuff and move it forward. If something 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.
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,
but we also have to put the working people of this country
above greed and 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.
Mr. Burlison. Gentleman yields back.
I am pleased to welcome our stellar panel of witnesses who
each bring their tremendous experience and expertise to bring
valuable conversations here today.
I would 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 last, we have Stephen G. Burns, former Chair of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I want to say thank you for taking time to join us here
today.
If you could please stand.
Pursuant to Committee rule 9(g), the witnesses will please
stand and raise their right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you
are 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. And just as a reminder,
we have read your written statements. You have an opportunity
to have 5 minutes. When the light turns yellow, it is time to
wrap up. And when it turns red, it is time to close.
And with that, I now recognize Mr. Epstein for his opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF ALEX EPSTEIN, PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER CENTER FOR
INDUSTRIAL PROGRESS
Mr. Epstein. Thank you.
Whenever we talk about abundant nuclear energy, including
SMRs, we need to recognize that the first step is for
government to stop doing the immense harm it is actively doing.
And this harm is harm that has provably gutted nuclear's
potential for decades.
It is important to recognize that in the 70s, clean, safe,
nuclear power--and it was very safe, it was the safest form of
energy in history even back then--became affordable. And It
quickly grew to 20 percent 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. In
my testimony today, I want to focus on how the NRC can act
quickly on the ADVANCE Act in a way consistent with the recent
Presidential executive orders (EO)s. But happy to answer any
questions also about what should be in future legislation since
I think there is a lot that can be improved on the ADVANCE Act.
But I want to give you 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.
So, one is the NRC should strip out the many inefficiencies
in its licensing process.
Through the ADVANCE Act, Congress has rightly required the
NRC's mission to include getting reactors built efficiently in
addition to ensuring they are safe. And recently, the NRC has
issued guidance to its offices on how to implement the new
mission statement.
But this needs to be done very aggressively. So, the NRC
should comb through their licensing process, determine what is
truly needed to make plants safe, and strip out all the time-
consuming portions that do not help with safety, such as months
being wasted on mandatory, ``uncontested'' hearings where no
one even objects but you have to--you might delay it by six
months.
Within six months of now, if the NRC pursues this, it could
publish a step-by-step licensing map showing the legal purpose,
decision criteria, maximum review clock, and NRC official
responsible for each stage, plus an online dashboard so
applicants and investors can see progress in real time.
By the way, the clock is not showing for me, so I do not
know if there is any way that can be indicated--oh, it is.
Okay. Thank you.
Number two, the NRC should use the general Environmental
Impact Statements (EIS)s by default.
So, 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 a 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.
So, the current multi-year process of just doing these
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 percent of the capital cost of a project.
What the NRC can do specifically is promulgate a rulemaking
to make GEIS's the default, particularly for standardized SMR
design, so we do not have all this duplicative review, and it
can start action on this within 90 days.
Number three is the NRC should replace what is called LNT
and ALARA 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
reevaluate what is called the ``Linear No Threshold,'' or LNT
model, that falsely assumes that there is no safe dose of
radiation, which is definitely not the case. And it also has
some--it is coupled with something called--the current policy
is coupled with ``As Low As Reasonably Achievable,'' ALARA,
that leads to limitless pseudo-safety restrictions.
So, LNT and ALARA have resulted in a public radiation dose
that is 50 times stricter than what science shows is safe. And
this just imposes huge unnecessary costs with absolutely no
benefit, and it is a big reason why nuclear has become ten
times more expensive than it needs to be.
So, the NRC, what it can specifically do is fast-track a
National Academies review of LNT low-dose radiation science.
And if they do that properly--I think the literature is pretty
clear, LNT is bogus--they can have a real science-based
threshold that they can set, which will keep nuclear safe but
allow it to be a lot more efficient.
Finally, the NRC should open ``nuclear innovation zones''
on Federal lands.
So, the recent EOs rightly encourage the testing of nuclear
reactors on Federal lands, which would allow private developers
to quickly iterate designs and run safety tests without waiting
years.
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 is called performance-based safety
testing requirements of regulatory code Part 53, and this can
just dramatically, dramatically expedite things.
So, would 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 will have much
more rapid progress in nuclear.
Thank you.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Smith for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF JOSHUA SMITH, ENERGY POLICY LEAD ABUNDANCE
INSTITUTE
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Chairman Burlison and Mr. Frost,
Members of the Committee.
My name is Josh Smith, and I am the Energy Policy Lead for
the Abundance Institute. We are a mission-driven 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; regulatory 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 energy intensive.
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.
Second, 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 five years.
This trio of swift, safe, and cheap was the norm.
Nuclear's struggles today are not inherent to the
technology. They are the product of outdated, unfit, and
counterproductive regulations.
Major barriers include ALARA and LNT standards, which
impose costs above any kind of offsetting safety benefits;
inflexible NRC frameworks that prevent innovation; and
nuclear's risks being widely misunderstood.
For example, there were no radiation-caused deaths
associated with Three Mile Island (TMI)'s release. The
Chernobyl disaster is impossible with modern reactor designs.
And, measured in deaths per terawatt hours of electricity
production, nuclear 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 U.S.
commercial nuclear waste could fit on a football field less
than ten 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. Even with ideal NRC
reforms, nuclear projects will be bogged down in the same
transmission, interconnection, and permitting reform
bottlenecks that strangle all U.S. large-scale infrastructure.
For example, it takes on average, ten 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.
Consider that Governor Josh Shapiro had to personally
intervene and ask the PGM grid operators to expedite the
reconnection of the Three Mile Island reactor. There is
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 cannot succeed in a system that blocks
entry before shovels hit the dirt. Licensing, 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. For example, Senator Harry Reid's
opposition to storing waste at Yucca Mountain set the tone for
today's conversations. Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis
opposed the start of the Seabrook 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
legislatures over the last two years.
States are now collaborating on nuclear development.
Leaders 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, swift, and cheap nuclear is
possible with simple regulatory reform. Ushering in the new
atomic age requires tackling the misperceptions about nuclear
power's risk and fixing its failing nuclear regulatory system.
Returning to a world where nuclear power is swift, safe,
and cheap is not just entirely possible, it 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.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Burns for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN G. BURNS (MINORITY WITNESS) SENIOR
VISITING FELLOW, THIRD WAY
Mr. Burns. 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.
In the United States, that 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.
Concern 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 assigned promotion and development to
what is now the Department of Energy.
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, 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 nuclear
energy in the 1950s.
There is always room to assess the efficiency and
effectiveness of the regulatory process and adapt it 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 ADVANCE Act signed into law last year.
The NRC has protected the health and safety 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 absorbed
into the regulatory process to ensure the continued safety of
our facilities.
The current Administration established ambitious goals to
increase nuclear energy capacity by, I think, some 300 percent
by the year 2050. The recent executive orders propose
significant changes for regulatory processes, some basically
endorsing the ADVANCE Act's provisions.
What it focuses on is a wholesale revision of safety
regulations, shortening schedules for new reactor reviews,
while at the same time suggesting the downsizing of the NRC.
While 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 adherence to the
principles of good regulation have resulted in the United
States safely maintaining the largest fleet of nuclear reactors
in the world and the safety standards that the international
nuclear community strives to meet.
I do have concerns about unintended safety consequences
that reduced NRC independence and a schedule-driven regulatory
paradigm threaten to bring. And the loss of public confidence
that can befall a safety agency is a risk when expediency is
seen to be given priority.
While I support continued focus on increasing NRC
efficiency--and we cannote that a number of things the agency
has done recently have come under schedule and at reduced
schedules within two years or 18 months--great care must be
taken in streamlining licensing and the regulatory process to
preclude erosion of high levels of nuclear safety.
For the revised framework to deliver reliable power, clear
guidance on safety is paramount, avoiding any mixed messages
that prioritize speed over safety.
I am concerned that steps to undercut the independence of
the NRC and the commitment to ensuring safety could undermine
the reputation of the U.S. reactor vendors in the rest of the
world.
A design license in the United States now carries a stamp
of approval that can facilitate licensing elsewhere, including
many countries that 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 that it has a strong
independent regulator behind it.
In sum, the Administration's objectives will fail if it
does not encourage a healthy nuclear safety culture with safety
as a high priority. This is critical for the operational
success and for preserving the United States' world class
reputation.
Thank you.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Burns.
I was finding it ironic, as I was sitting here listening to
your testimony, that your name is Mr. Burns.
Mr. Burns. Yes.
Mr. Burlison. And I am sure you have heard that joke
before.
Mr. Burns. Yes, I have. 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 woman at the desk call down to the luggage
handler, and he said the name and he said, ``Comme Monsieur
Burns?'' I said, ``Yes, yes, like Mr. Burns.'' He was referring
to ``The Simpsons.''
So, anyway, yes, it has been kind of a joke over the years.
Good one.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you for that.
All right. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes, and I will
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 they could not accomplish
that in the United States, that they would have to go on
foreign soil to demonstrate to the American public and the
government that their technology is ready.
What is holding back companies like that from doing this in
the United States?
Mr. Smith. Thank 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. It is important that we do continued
modeling. It is important that we continue doing extensive
testing. But we also need to do real-life testing rather than
just rely on the data that we currently use.
In particular, one of the exciting recent state-level
endeavors is Governor Spencer Cox in Utah signed a memorandum
of understanding with Valar Atomics to develop an SMR within
Utah by July 4, 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.
There is extensive interest and opportunity, but the states
need to actually be allowed to lead.
Mr. Burlison. I am going to jump to one of my questions,
then, regarding the states.
How would they be better suited than the Federal government
for regulating this?
Mr. Smith. One of the key differences between the designs
of the 60s and 70s and today is they are very, very different.
So, there is 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 do not need a containment chamber or containment
facility for their design, and yet the NRC prescriptive
regulations say: thou shalt have one.
And so, state-level interests can develop new rules that
avoid this kind of old problem. We could do some of this at the
Federal level, of course. I think there is 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. Texas
has been developing an Advanced Nuclear Working Group. Utah
similarly has an Office of Energy Development official who is
purely devoted to nuclear now in addition to extensive
legislative efforts within the state congress.
So, very exciting and lots to do.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
Mr. Epstein, what approach should the United States be
taking in regards to this? Should we follow the model of the
previous Administration where we used taxpayer dollars to
subsidize this development or should we let the free market
dictate what happens?
Mr. Epstein. Well, definitely free market. But it really
hinges on how you are 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 policy history.
So, we hear things like, ``Oh, the NRC was helpful
maintaining the nuclear fleet.'' Well, why are we saying
``maintaining''? It is because they prevented anything from
being done. From 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 is a failure. So, we need to
recognize the NRC as it exists is a failure.
Now, that does not mean that it necessarily should not
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.
In particular, we need some good commissioners. We do not
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 are just going to have another
subsidized energy industry. That is not what we need. We want
to unleash an unsubsidized energy industry.
Mr. Burlison. And what is happening with the manufacturing
of these micro nuclear reactors is that they are eventually
wanting to get it to scale. That is the only way that you are
going to do this that is cost effective. And yet, what I am
told is that they have to get these permitted. Each one would
have to go through the same process as if you are doing a
large-scale nuclear site.
Is that correct, Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. I believe so. And the Idaho National Laboratory
in an 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 notice and regulatory
requirements, you would still be able to apply and build your
reactor under a general license.
But I believe the INL's advice requires legislative action.
Mr. Burlison. That would only make sense, right?
All right. I now recognize Ranking Member Frost for his
opening statement.
Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Trump Administration seems on this, like, science-free
deregulation spree. I think it is endangering our health and
safety.
And, look, as our national policymakers, we have to balance
multiple interests, including supporting the innovation and the
developers, but also protecting communities and future
generations.
Yet, the Administration's approach to policy, to me, seems
singularly focused on growing profits of executives versus the
other side of things.
And we see what is 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 am excited about the potential of advanced
nuclear reactors, SMRs, as part of the solution to our
dependence on fossil fuels. But when we are dealing with
something as complex as nuclear power generation and as
volatile as nuclear fission, speed alone is not the answer,
although we want to be able to streamline things, we want to
use technology as best we can.
Mr. Burns, the Nuclear Innovation Alliance, which is a
nuclear energy industry think tank, wrote, ``Undermining NRC's
independence is damaging to both long-term U.S. interests and
to the ongoing work that is required to ensure that nuclear
power can provide reliable and clean energy to power the
American economy.''
Why is the nuclear industry itself concerned with attacks
on the independence of the NRC and Trump's attempts at rapid
deregulation?
Mr. Burns. Well, I think, Congressman, the reason is that
not only historically have we had a regulatory system--that is
the expectation under U.S. law as well, as I say, the
international paradigm, but it provides--it can provide
confidence not--I am going beyond just licensing here. I am
going to in terms of the operation and accountability of those
who operate 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 adds value to that,
and there is communication between the NRC and INPO over the
respective work.
But, again, there is a need for ensuring public confidence.
And the role of having a strong regulator has been important to
that commitment and that role.
Mr. Frost. Yes. And this is damaging the reputation of
American reactors and has big potentials of slowing down what
we want to do.
We heard from Mr. Epstein, one of our witnesses, who I have
met with before. Obviously, have big disagreements with him on
the existence of a climate crisis, but we are talking about
something else.
He mentioned a timeline of 1975 and the 80s when we saw a
downturn. Reactors not being built. 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 am talking about, Mr. Burns?
Mr. Burns. Well, to begin with, in terms of what the
statistical numbers are, that since the Three Mile Island
accident something like 51 power reactors came into operation
in the United States. Now, granted, since the 1990s, it is
three, the two Vogtle units and the Watts Bar Unit 2.
But part of this is what you have is public confidence. You
have issues with respect to--and there was some allusion to
this in terms of the grid, how the grid is managed, and the
economics there. That has been some of it, low natural gas
prices; the emergence of solar and wind production.
And post-TMI. And we are seeing that even just today, where
you are seeing some of the post-TMI restrictions on new nuclear
having been lifted. I think, like, Wyoming is one of the more
recent states, 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 did not have the big renaissance in the early 2000s
as was perhaps planned for.
Mr. Frost. Yes. And nuclear energy, by definition--I mean,
I think we have to make--it is a dangerous thing. But what
makes it safe--and we want to make it safe--is through the
policies that we pass, the work that is done, taking something
that, by definition, is a dangerous thing and making it safe to
use in the United States.
And I think we can look at the fact that the United
States--and we can boast that we have not had a single civilian
reactor-related death in 50 years of the NRC's existence, and
that did not happen by accident.
And, again, I am not here to say that there is nothing we
need to do in Congress to help make sure that we streamline,
possibly using modeling simulation, different things like that,
so we can move in a faster way, because we want to see this
done. But this knee-jerk reaction of deregulation, again, many
times can cause unintended consequences, of course, if, God
forbid, something would happen.
Thank you for the extra time, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
I now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Perry. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks to the panel for being here.
I have the distinct honor of representing the district that
much of lies in the shadow of the towers, the cooling towers of
Three Mile Island.
I am also happy to report that it is a vibrant, healthy,
and productive community in the shadow of Three Mile Island.
And 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 are talking about here today,
on that site that is so well-situated for such a facility.
Now, I cannot 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 facilities, while it seems
to me, over the course of at least the last ten years, my
colleagues on that side of the aisle have promoted and enacted
policies that have increased the bills of my constituents, my
bosses, that my neighbors, the people I live around, I do not
know, maybe tenfold.
It is astounding. They do not seem to care how much
citizens pay for electricity and how much renewable--we will be
kind, we will call them ``renewable'' energy operators make on
government subsidies and mandates because their products simply
cannot compete in the market. They seem to have no problem with
that.
I just think it is important that we at least attempt to
set the record straight while we are 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 dangerous,
careless, and does not care about the citizens that they serve,
and only people interested in renewables are willing to give up
all their profits--which they are not--and provide low-cost
energy to the masses--which they are not that either. As a
matter of fact, it is the highest cost energy, and it is also
very much more dangerous than nuclear energy.
But that having been said, because I am going on, Mr.
Epstein, the ADVANCE Act required that the NRC now switch to
general environmental impact statements.
One of the things that drives what kind of energy is
produced is how investments--when individuals, when concerns
invest their money in something, they want to know that they
are going to get a return on it. And I hope they get a profit
too because they are investing in something and putting their
money at risk. That is how things work in America.
But putting your money at risk for 15 or 20 years without
any surety that there is going to be a positive outcome is a
detractor from that investment. And, essentially, the
regulations that are in place now are deterrent to the
advancement of nuclear energy and general production itself.
So, if you could just briefly explain how not doing the
same thing over and over and over again for the same 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.
Mr. Epstein. For sure.
So, I think it is really important that you raise the issue
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, et cetera.
There are two kinds of problems that arise. One 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 is the exact same thing. That just dramatically
increases cost.
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 is particularly
egregious because what it does is it puts more intermittent,
unreliable solar and wind on the grid. It does not 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. The reliable power
plants get defunded, cannot make a profit.
This is why we have a shortage of gas turbines, one of the
reasons why nuclear is in bad shape.
But we cannot build dispatchable capacity profitably
because we have 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.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Min for 5 minutes.
Mr. Min. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Appreciate the opportunity to talk about green energy and
innovation, and I have long taken an all-of-the-above approach
when it comes to meeting our Nation's energy needs.
I would just note in response to the last witness,
obviously solar and wind power are intermittent. However, there
are these things called batteries. They are getting better, and
they make the grid much more reliable.
In fact, I would just note for the record that according to
the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 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.
By comparison, solar is expected to decline from its
current cost of $55 per megawatt hour to $25 per megawatt hour,
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, and I think that we should be looking for some
of the advancements that may happen.
I have a company in my district, Tri Alpha Energy, it is
making--it is developing clean fusion technology. They are
hopeful that they can get actual working prototypes of real
power plants on the grid in the next ten years. And I know we
always talk about clean fusion being on the grid in ten years.
Technologies like that do really seem to have promise as we
think about how to provide an abundance of energy.
But I also want to note that nuclear fission does present
challenges. Just south of my district, in San Onofre, we had a
nuclear power plant offline for some years. We still have not
figured out what to do with the nuclear waste that was created
there. It is a ticking time bomb.
Those of us who represent regions nearby are very concerned
that at some point this may leak, 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 safe storage. So, it is
sitting there, just off the beach. We have seen what has
happened, for example, in Fukushima, in Chernobyl. We are very
concerned about what might happen there.
But, I guess, my first question is to you, Mr. Burns.
We have seen the massive cuts--formalized later, after they
were first illegally undertaken by Elon Musk and his DOGE staff
and through executive orders--massive cuts to our Federal
Government staffing. And so that has, of course, affected the
NRC as well. And in May, Donald Trump issued a number of
executive orders requiring the NRC to streamline operations and
reduce staff.
Mr. Burns, I was wondering if you could talk about how this
might threaten the safety and effectiveness of the NRC's
regulatory review and permitting process, and how it might
affect some of the safety concerns that a number of us have
about nuclear fission.
Mr. Burns. Okay. Thank you for the question.
The interesting thing with respect to the executive order
directed to the NRC is that an early draft of it just adopted
the Reduction in Force (RIF) language that I think you are
seeing across the government.
The final version indicated while there might be a need for
additional staffing within the context of new reactor licensing
and regulation--and I think that is something--fortunately, I
hope that it is adhered to. Because if you do have--you have
had first movers coming in over the last few years with Kairos,
X-energy, some others, Abilene Christian, coming in with
respect to new designs--but if you have this big wave, you are
going to need the staffing to do those reviews, even taking
into account efficiencies that might be able to be implemented
and approaches that have been taken over a number of years now
by the NRC to effectively do the licensing review.
So, I think that is a place--I cannot give you any specific
figures--but that is a place where you have to, I think, have
an open mind if you are really going to--looking at to get
this--get these things through--that you have the staffing.
That is a challenge because you have had an aging staff. And so
being able to track staff is very important.
Mr. Min. Well-trained staff may, in fact, increase
efficiency.
Mr. Smith, my last question is to you. You support an
Abundance agenda, and I think a lot of us, particularly from
places like California, agree with that approach.
At the same time, what we have seen from this
Administration is efforts to really handicap and eliminate a
lot of the support for clean energy adoption. Meanwhile, in
countries like China, we are seeing heavy subsidization of
clean energy.
Are we brilliant somehow, and China, Germany, all of them
are getting it wrong? Or are we doing something here that might
hamper clean, cheap energy of the future?
Mr. Smith. I think the right approach--and thank you for
your question--the right approach for environmentalists is to
become free marketeers from now on.
For years we have been hearing--and I have been saying and
other environmental activists have been saying--that solar and
wind storage are all getting cheaper. This is true. And it is
time to concentrate on the real barriers, which are about
permitting.
If you look at Energy Information Administration (EIA)
projections, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) really failed,
even on its own terms, in the sense that it did not spur the
growth that green activists wanted. And the problem is because,
as Reagan said, government likes to tax it until it stops
moving and then subsidize it again.
The real problem is let us get rid of those regulations.
The local siting barriers. Reforms to National Environmental
Policy Act (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 in energy. The Federal subsidies are distorting, but
you still get steel in the ground in places that let people
build.
Mr. Min. I appreciate that. And we just had a NEPA hearing
in Natural Resources. I think many of us are concerned,
however, that NEPA--there is one thing to reform. It is another
to essentially eliminate it, and I think we are worried about
the latter.
I will just close with this statement, that a number of
businesses I talk to believe that the Chinese are so heavily
subsidizing clean energy, batteries, things in related
technologies, that U.S. companies just cannot keep up, and that
eliminating the clean energy tax credits has essentially
conceded that market for generations.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
I request unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes of
questions evenly distributed between myself and the Ranking
Member.
Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Epstein, recently I toured a company called Radiant,
met with the CEO, Doug Bernauer, who is an amazing individual,
who was challenged by Elon Musk to help to colonize Mars and
came to the conclusion the only way to provide electricity and
to get electricity to Mars was through micro nuclear.
I also met Isaiah Taylor with Valar Atomics, which is an
amazing, very creative company that is using carbon
sequestration in their process to combine it with other, like,
with oxygen or hydrogen in order to create jet fuel, which is
just mind-blowing, that you get electricity and the byproduct
is jet fuel.
With that being said, can you speak to how the regulatory
process for these guys who are doing very creative, very
innovative stuff might be stifling to that mindset?
Mr. Epstein. Yes. I admire these guys for trying, because
it is just--it is so, so difficult to do things, I mean, for
all the reasons I mentioned. The licensing process, it could be
difficult to test things. The whole Linear No Threshold and
ALARA, As Low As Reasonably Achievable.
So, all these dogmas, as I said, can be changed. And it
will just radically open the frontier for innovation where
companies like these can go very quickly from idea to action.
Right now, there is just an enormous gap between idea to
action.
One 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 Three Mile Island was the
problem. But as Scott Perry pointed out, Three Mile Island is
not fundamentally a problem. The fact that the worst nuclear
accident we have had 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 is fundamentally safe.
It is not safe primarily because of regulation. It is safe
because the material cannot explode like combustion can.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
One last question, Mr. Smith.
When I speak to them, they refer to the 18-month period.
Can you describe the dynamic of getting the permitting process
done and why companies that are ready to go today are having to
go through an 18-month period?
Mr. Smith. Which 18-month period?
Mr. Burlison. For review.
Mr. Smith. For review.
So, I think there are 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 do not 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 submissions.
There are a lot of opportunities to cut those down and see
the kinds of things like Governor Cox wants to see in Utah. If
we can build something by July 4, 2026, we can have test
reactors that we do not push companies to the Philippines or
outside of the United States to test and experiment what used
to be and started as an American technology.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
Recognize Ranking Member Frost.
Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I mean, you know, there are a few things. I mean, one of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle was talking a lot
about picking winners and losers with some of the subsidies we
saw in the Inflation Reduction Act. And I have never heard him
speak about the tons of subsidies that for over a century we
have given the fossil fuels as a country.
And I agree with Representative Min as well. I mean, the
biggest winner from the big ugly law ripping away a lot of
these investments we have made in American companies as it
relates to clean energy is China when we talk about that entire
market.
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 are not--we
are not here trying to demonize nuclear, nuclear companies.
None of us are here saying that nuclear companies want to hurt
anyone or anything like that.
But there is a balance here between the safety of our
people and also moving quickly on this that it is our job to
recognize and keep in mind. And it just--it worries me when we
have people saying, well, it is 100 percent, there is nothing
wrong with this and that, kind of like what we just heard from
Mr. Epstein, that creates this environment where we are more
open to big issues which, again, can set us back decades as it
relates to nuclear.
But, Mr. Burns, when we heard Mr. Epstein say that nuclear
cannot explode like combustion can, you made a face. I just
wonder if you have a response to that. And just generally
curious, when it comes to human health and safety, why are the
careful, comprehensive regulations and inspections still
necessary?
Mr. Burns. I think my reaction is that I acknowledge Three
Mile Island, because of design and other facilities, we did not
lose the containment. There was some concern over it at the
time in terms of some of the assessment.
But what we did, I think what we learned from Three Mile
Island, it is not so much whether someone had died or not but
how do we think about preventing that in the future. We do not
want to go down that path.
And, yes, for example, I agree with Chernobyl--a reactor
design that would never have been licensed in the United
States. But again, it is about learning and a learning culture
in terms of what does that--what is the significance of that.
There was, for example, no emergency preparedness programs
prior to the Three Mile Island accident. That has gone--went
into effect.
Other ways of in terms of operator--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 accidents but other things that have
happened over the years. We learned in terms of looking at
security measures after the 9/11 attacks, which actually had a
benefit in terms of what we saw as we evaluated the Fukushima
Daiichi accident and things like that
So, it is this, if you want to call it a learning culture,
but partly is assessing where you have been and what that may
mean. And, yes, it also includes saying: where am I
misfocusing, or where do I need to improve my focus?
If I could, in response to that question with respect to
the mandatory hearing, I and a number of former commissioners
have joined, we have sent a letter in supporting basically the
elimination of the mandatory hearing.
But what I want to emphasize is that is not NRC's fault.
That mandatory hearing has been 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. Strauss--in terms of not providing the Congress or the
general public information about the licensing of what was then
the Fermi 1 reactor.
Anyway, I support the elimination of the mandatory
hearings.
Mr. Frost. Yes, something to explore a lot further in a
bipartisan way.
I yield back.
Mr. Burlison. Maybe we can cosponsor something together.
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.
Mr. Frost. Thank you so much.
Well, I appreciate our witnesses for being here as we talk
about an extremely important topic.
Again, I think it is important for people to recognize we
are not against innovation as it relates to nuclear, at least
the members on this panel, but we want to make sure that safe
nuclear energy is part of the solution on ending our dependency
on fossil fuels.
But this end-all-be-all effort that we are seeing from many
actors to completely deregulate to move that forward is just
not 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 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 have seen from the
Administration on attacking the independence of the NRC. I
think it is very important.
The cost in property, cleanup, and lives when disasters do
happen have always been extreme. Let us avoid all this, work
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 our licensing and how safe our reactors are.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
I now recognize myself for a closing statement.
I want to say thank you, Mr. Epstein, 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.
Small 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.
Whether it is 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 is government.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must evolve. The 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 should back the Trump
Administration's demand for a more agile, risk-informed, and
performance-based regulatory approach.
Advanced reactors are not a science experiment. They are a
competitive advantage for the United States. But unless we act
with urgency, unless we align our regulatory institutions with
the pace of innovation, then we risk ceding that advantage to
someone else.
This Subcommittee will continue its oversight of these
issues to help assure that that does not happen.
And with that, without objection, all Members will have
five legislative days within which to submit 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 stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:05 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]