On June 18, 2019, U.S. Representatives Elaine Luria (D-VA) and Denver Riggleman (R-VA), along with Reps. Rob Wittman (R-VA) and Conor Lamb (D-PA), introduced in the House the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act (H.R. 3306), an identical companion bill to the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act (S. 903) (“NELA”), which was introduced in the Senate on March 27, 2019.

The bill is designed to help the United States regain its global nuclear leadership and calls on the Department of Energy to create a 10-year nuclear energy strategic plan. But the bill’s resurgence and introduction in the House reflects the current excitement surrounding the advanced nuclear industry and its promise to provide a clean, reliable source of energy.  Use of identical bills will hopefully help expedite its passage once it is reported out of committee. The Senate Energy Committee is also coordinating with the House cosponsors and other House leadership to shepherd the bill through the legislative process.

We covered the details of NELA when it was first introduced in 2018, as well as its reintroduction to the senate in early 2019.

In Rep. Luria’s press release associated with the bill, she says:

As an engineer who operated nuclear reactors on aircraft carriers, I know that ensuring a thriving civilian nuclear industry is vital not only for our economy, but for our national security. Nuclear energy must be part of any solution to transitioning to a clean energy future because nuclear power provides over 55% of our carbon-free energy. That’s why I’m proud to reach across the aisle and introduce this critical bipartisan bill.

On the NRC side, there have been two recent papers issued this June impacting advanced reactor design:

Last but certainly not least, we are excited to pass along that Rita Baranwal has been overwhelmingly confirmed by the Senate to be the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Energy.  Her strong technical background, successful leadership of the DOE Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear, and overall enthusiasm for nuclear energy make her ideally suited to help usher in the next generation of nuclear reactors.  Congratulations!

For a more information about the above topic, please contact the authors.

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in early May issued a notice seeking comments on a new draft regulatory guide impacting advanced reactor licensing. Draft Regulatory Guide (DG) 1353 (DG-1353) focuses on using a technology-inclusive, risk-informed, and performance-based methodology to inform the licensing basis and content of applications for non-light-water reactors.  It is related to the industry-led Licensing Modernization Project and endorses the principles and methodologies developed under that project as one method for determining the appropriate scope of an NRC license application.  These principles and methodologies are largely embodied in NEI 18-04, Risk-Informed Performance-Based Guidance for Non-Light Water Reactor Licensing Basis Development.

Since the issuance of NRC Vision and Strategy: Safely Achieving Effective and Efficient Non-Light Water reactor Mission Readiness in 2016, the NRC has been actively working to develop guidance for a flexible regulatory review process for advanced reactors. DG-1353 advances that goal. It provides direction to developers and other applicants who are trying to navigate the regulatory review process, and it encourages them to consider regulatory review early in their development processes.

Comments on DG-1353 must be submitted by July 2, 2019. The NRC plans to issue the final regulatory guide in late 2019.

April has seen significant milestones in licensing of advanced reactors.  We take a closer look at these developments, in particular the first submission of an advanced reactor license application in Canada.

On March 20, 2019, Global First Power (GFP), partnered with Ontario Power Generation and Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation (Ultra Safe), submitted a license application to the CNSC for a “License to Prepare Site” for a future SMR at Chalk River Laboratories in Ontario.  GFP seeks eventually to build an Ultra Safe Micro Modular Reactor (MMR) at the site producing 15MW thermal / 5MW electric.  GFP has been an early leader in response to the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories’ invitation to site an SMR at one of facilities.  GFP was the first participant to progress through the second stage of the invitation process, and has been invited to participate in certain land and commercial discussions as well.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) licensing process is staged, with separate licensing actions to prepare the site, construct, and then operate a reactor (although the latter two steps can potentially be combined into one licensing action).  The License to Prepare Site is the first step in the process, and evaluates whether the proposed site is suitable for a nuclear reactor of a given general design.  As summarized by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission:

An application for a license to prepare site (LTPS) does not require detailed design information or specifications of a facility. . . . The review of the application focuses on determining whether the site characteristics that have an impact on health, safety, security and the environment have been identified, and that these characteristics have been taken into consideration and will also be considered in the design, operation and decommissioning of the proposed facility.

In this sense U.S. and Canadian licensing processes share many similarities.  For example, the License to Prepare Site mimics the “Early Site Permit” licensing process in the United States.  Under the U.S. nuclear licensing regime laid out in 10 CFR Part 52, companies can first request an Early Site Permit from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and then a “Combined License” to both construct and then operate a reactor on the pre-approved site.

Like in the U.S., the Canadian nuclear regulator will first conduct a sufficiency review to ensure the application has all required elements, before processing it on the merits.  Once the application has been assessed, the CNSC will issue a notice of commencement and the project description will be available to the public for comment as part of the environmental review.  The timeline for completing the license review process for a License to Prepare Site is 24 months, similar to what the NRC advertises for completing many of its related licensing actions.   Both countries have set forth long term visions to lead in siting of advanced reactors (as discussed in prior blog posts for the U.S. and Canada).  Also like in the U.S., the CNSC has set forth guidance as to the licensing process for SMRs, and what an application should contain.

What will be interesting is to see how the Canadian licensing process compares with the U.S. process in implementation, and how both can benefit from lessons learned by each other.  The U.S. arguably has a head start, already reviewing a Design Certification Application for a NuScale SMR, and recently having completed the environmental review for an Early Site Permit for a SMR system of up to 800 MWe next to the Clinch River in Oak Ridge, Tennessee (although a few further steps remain till the permit is granted).

However, the Canadian licensing strategy has received early accolades for offering a graded, and streamlined process, including with its Pre-Licensing Vendor Design Review.  In the U.S., the Clinch River Early Site Permit process is expected to take over 3 years to complete (see timeline), and the environmental review document alone comes in at near 1400 pages, including appendices (keep in mind that the costs of NRC licensing reviews are charged back to the applicant).  Although the U.S. Clinch River project is for a much larger reactor, a key metric to watch will be whether the CNSC meets or exceeds its licensing timelines, and whether it can truly adopt a graded licensing approach given the much smaller size of the GFP MMR project.

To learn more about SMR licensing, please contact the authors.

The reintroduction of Nuclear Energy Leadership Act (NELA) caps off a week of activities focused on innovation, and follows on advancement of key U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) guidance on advanced reactor licensing.

We covered NELA when it was first introduced in 2018, focusing on its important bipartisan contributions to reestablishing global leadership in nuclear energy.  On Wednesday,  NELA was reintroduced in the Senate with a renewed push to make it into law.  It is gaining broad support not just from the nuclear community, but also climate advocates and industry leaders – with Bill Gates tweeting “I can’t overstate how important this is.”  The text of the act can be found here, and a section-by-section summary and fact sheet are also available.  To highlight some of the key provisions of the legislation, NELA:

  • Directs the U.S. government to enter into long-term power purchase agreements with nuclear reactors.
  • Promotes the development of advanced reactors and fuel by strategically aligning U.S. government and industry interests, which is intended to enable U.S. developers to compete with their state-sponsored competitors from Russia and China.  NELA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to develop a strategic plan to foster nuclear R&D and translation of that R&D to commercial applications.
  • Helps promote a fast neutron-capable research facility, which is crucial to test important new nuclear technologies and demonstrate their safe and reliable operation. DOE has started to move in this direction with its launch of the Versatile Test Reactor project, but NELA can make sure the project becomes a reality.
  • Directs DOE to develop a source of high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) fuel, which is the intended fuel for many advanced reactor designs, from U.S. government stockpiles.  It also supports establishment of a capability to transport HALEU fuel.

The reintroduction of NELA came in the middle of Nuclear Innovation Week, a joint collaboration of the Nuclear Innovation Alliance, Nuclear Energy Institute, American Nuclear Society, Electric Power Research Institute, and Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear, focused on both industry and policy activities necessary to make recent innovations in nuclear reactor and fuel design a reality.  Right after NELA was reintroduced, the nuclear industry was on the Hill the next day discussing advancements in nuclear technology and the importance of legislative action.

It is important to recognize advances on the regulatory front as well.  Last week, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), an NRC committee focused on reactor safety issues, penned a letter to the Chairman of the NRC recommending the finalization of DG-1353, guidance on technology-inclusive, performance-based, risk-informed regulatory reviews for non-light water advanced reactors.  ACRS found that the with some modifications to the guidance, DG-1353, along with accompanying NEI industry guidance, NEI 18-04, would allow advanced reactor entrepreneurs to develop a licensing basis and the other contents of NRC license applications.  Industry-led pilot projects as part of the Licensing Modernization Project have served as mechanisms to test the ability of this guidance to inform development of NRC submittals.

For more about the above topics, please contact the authors.

The start of 2019 has seen significant progress towards production and licensing of high-assay low-enriched uranium (“HALEU”) fuel.  If this momentum keeps up, it has the ability to check off what we have long-discussed to be a key prerequisite to commercial debut of advanced reactors.

As to production of HALEU, two significant events occurred around the end of January and start of February.

  • On January 17, DOE issued an Environmental Assessment (“EA”) finding no significant environmental impact with using DOE-owned HALEU feedstock currently stored at Idaho National Laboratory for production of fuel for advanced reactors.  This step moves the use of government surplus HALEU for advanced reactors one step closely to reality. The EA covers 10 metric tons of HALEU feedstock, created from processing of fuel used in the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II program.  In the DOE press release on the EA, DOE stated that “[w]ith this decision, the federal government will fabricate HALEU nuclear fuel at INL from the lab’s HALEU feedstock”—however the EA itself notes that “production requires expansion of [INL’s] fuel fabrication capability, including the purchase of new equipment and use of facilities.”
  • On February 5, URENCO USA announced that it “is now exploring the construction of a dedicated HALEU unit at the URENCO USA facility.”  While the DOE INL program would kick-start HALEU fuel testing and demonstration, URENCO USA’s announcement would secure a long-term source of HALEU for commercial fuel fabrication.  URENCO USA’s New Mexico Facility is the country’s only operating commercial enrichment facility, and produces one-third of US demand for enrichment services.  With an already-operating enrichment facility on U.S. soil, and its parent company’s experience with producing enriched uranium above 5% U235 at enrichment facilities in Europe, URENCO USA is well-positioned to bring HALEU fuel to the commercial market on a time-scale necessary to meet the demands of the domestic advanced reactor industry.

But producing HALEU for advanced reactors is just half the battle.  HALEU fuel designs need to be tested and validated before they can be licensed and used commercially.  To this end, DOE’s recent announcement launching the Versatile Test Reactor (“VTR”) project is welcome news.  The VTR will allow for testing of advanced fuel designs, particularly those fuel designs intended for fast neutron reactors.  DOE’s announcement acknowledges that the U.S. trails both China and Russia in the ability to test advanced reactor fuels and materials.  In an article by DOE Deputy Secretary Dan Brouillette accompanying the VTR launch press release, Mr. Brouillette stated that the VTR, which is planned to come online mid-2020s, “eliminates this research gap” and could also “drastically extend lifetime reactor cores, boost fuel performance and even accelerate fusion research.”

With many companies moving forward with fabrication plans for advanced reactor fuel, these advancements in both producing and validating HALEU fuel cannot come soon enough.

For more about production, licensing, or use of use of HALEU fuel in nuclear reactors, please contact the authors.

Activity across the government has put advanced nuclear reactors center stage early this year.  With the signing of the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, hearings on Capitol Hill, and the release of a Department of Defense (DOD) Request for Information (RFI) for small mobile reactors, it is clear the federal government sees advanced reactors as a critical part of our country’s future energy portfolio, and that investment in regulatory reform along with public-private R&D is key to making this future a reality.

Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act: The Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA) was signed into law on January 14, bolstered by strong bipartisan support.  NEIMA is focused on regulatory reform strategies aimed at creating a more efficient licensing structure for advanced reactors.  One of the bill’s cosponsors touted the signing as “critical for the revitalization of our nation’s nuclear energy industry.”  For more information see our blog post Nuclear Reading to Kick Off the New Year.

Senate Appropriations Committee Hearing on New Nuclear Technologies: The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water held a hearing on January 16 focused on the cost and safety advantages of advanced nuclear reactors.  Witnesses included the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Department of Energy (Edward McGinnis), the Director of Oak Ridge National Labs (Dr. Thomas Zacharia), and the Vice President of Nuclear Technologies and Materials at General Atomics (Dr. Christina Back). Although, the hearing touched on a number of issues, it focused on how new nuclear technology address financial and safety concerns associated with traditional nuclear reactors.

Dr. Zacharia touted his lab’s Transformational Challenge Reactor program as a change agent.  The program’s goal is to design, fabricate, and test the core of a nuclear micro-reactor within the next five years. The key to success, according to Dr. Zacharia, is additive manufacturing, which includes 3-D printing, digital manufacturing, and the use of digital prototypes.  Dr. Back from General Atomics also emphasized the use of advanced digital technology, but she focused on its applicability to reactor licensing and testing.  Dr. McGinnis summed up the goal of the hearing when he noted in his statement that “with a focused and sustained collaborative private-public partnership approach to support early-stage R&D…we can indeed revive, revitalize, and expand our Nation’s nuclear energy sector and restore our global nuclear energy leadership.”

DOD Request for Information on Small Modular Reactors: On January 18, the DOD Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering put out a request for information on small mobile reactors.  According to the RFI, small mobile reactors would fill a need identified by the Defense Science Board in 2016 for powering forward operating bases—adding that small mobile reactors can “fundamentally change the logistics of forward operating bases” while serving other benefits such as in addressing humanitarian crises.  The RFI explains that public input could be used as the basis for future requests under the DOD’s prototype authority in 10 U.S.C. § 2371b, including to seek development of up to three prototype reactor designs.

The RFI provides discrete specifications for its ideal small mobile reactor—it can produce 1-10 megawatts for three years without refueling, can be installed and operating within 72 hours, can be transported by military platforms such as a C-17 aircraft, requires no manpower to operate, and incorporates passive safety features. Many of these characteristics align with the 2018 U.S. Army-commissioned Study on the Use of Mobile Nuclear Power Plants for Ground Operations, discussed in our last blog post.  Responses to the RFI are due February 8.

For more about any of the above topics, please contact the authors.

Happy New Year!  As we start off 2019, we want to motive the nuclear community by sharing a few legal updates and popular reports that have come out around the end of the last year.

  • Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (S.512, NEIMA):  On December 21, Congress adopted NEIMA, legislation that addresses NRC licensing activities for current and next-generation nuclear reactors—and which the President is expected to sign in due course.  The text of the enrolled bill can be found here.  The legislation has a number of sections devoted to budget efficiency and reigning in NRC licensing fees “to the maximum extent practicable,” but also contains a number of provisions pushing the agency to develop a new regulatory approach for advanced reactors.  These include:
    • Prompting the NRC to “Develop and implement” a Staged Licensing Program (along with conceptual design assessments and licensing project plans).  The legislation also pushes the NRC to hasten research and test reactor licensing, further adopt risk-informed regulatory processes, and train staff and hire experts to support licensing activities.  The legislation requires the NRC to provide reports to Congress to monitor agency progress.  Many of these steps are things the NRC already is attempting—for example, the NRC’s advanced reactor licensing guidance, such as its “Regulatory Review Roadmap For Non-Light Water Reactors,” already speak to staged licensing, conceptual design reviews, and project plans.  However, NEIMA authorizes $14,420,000 for this effort per year, which if added beyond current allocations could help hasten all of these activities.
    • Requiring the NRC to Report on Creating a New Reactor Licensing Framework.  As opposed to the above activities, which would occur largely under the current regulatory framework, the legislation would also ask the NRC to draft a report to Congress on developing a new, technology-inclusive regulatory framework for advanced reactor licensing, to be completed by 2027.  This builds on suggestions already put forward by the NRC staff for a “10 CFR Part 53” process for licensing advanced reactors, which is also highlighted in an article recently co-authored by one of the writers of this blog.
    • Amending the Atomic Energy Act to Allow Research/Test Reactors to Sell Energy.  This interesting provision would amend 42 USC 2134(c), one of the core elements of the Atomic Energy Act, to permit licensing of a broader variety of research and test reactors under a “minimum amount of regulation”—including research and test reactors that also generate revenue from other sources, such as through sales of electricity (although such sales would be capped at a percent of annual facility ownership & operating costs).  A goal of this provision appears to be to enhance the economics for building research and test reactors, long considered a key roadblock to advanced reactor licensing.

There is much more to this legislation than described here, and we hope it will have a significant effect on advanced reactor licensing in the United States.

  • DOE to Use 2 of NuScale’s First 12 Modules:  The same time as NEIMA moved through Congress, DOE announced a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to draw on 2 of the planned 12 modules of NuScale’s first reactor project, for DOE research and facility use.  This MOU concerns NuScale’s first planned reactor project, to be procured by Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) and sited at Idaho National Laboratories (INL).  According to the DOE press release, one module would “be designated strictly for research activities (referred to as the Joint Use Modular Plant or JUMP program),” focusing on development of integrated energy systems. The second module would then be used to provide power to INL under a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA).
  • National Academies Fusion Report:  In Mid-December, the  National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) issued a detailed new report on nuclear fusion, entitled the Final Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research.  It highlights the significant progress made in fusion research, and provides guidance on a national strategy to achieve practical fusion energy.  Critically, along with supporting the multi-national International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project in France, the report recommends a separate national effort “to build a compact pilot plant that produces electricity from fusion at the lowest possible capital cost.”  The report is technically focused, but also briefly discusses regulatory matters, pointing to past DOE safety guidance developed for the ITER project as a starting point.  It also posits that “[s]iting and licensing strategies for such facilities should be developed well in advance so as not to delay the progress toward the compact fusion pilot plant.”  Questions as to the final regulatory framework and regulator for commercial fusion facilities are still very much under consideration, although the report considers a transition to the NRC as the regulator for commercial fusion power facilities.

It also seems worth highlighting two other reports that came out earlier in 2018, that have been trending lately in the nuclear community.

  • The first is a U.S. Army-commissioned Study on the Use of Mobile Nuclear Power Plants for Ground Operations.  It is a thorough report that among other things, details past use of mobile nuclear reactors by the U.S. Army, including for providing power and fresh water at the Panama Canal Zone.  It also recommends the Army pursue mobile nuclear power plant acquisition through the National Defense Authorization Act, and suggests discrete performance requirements for any such plant.
  • The second is an MIT report, The Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World.  It covers a number of topics, and has a whole chapter dedicated to nuclear licensing issues.  Stepping back, a unique contribution of the report appears to be the way it leads with a very detailed discussion of nuclear power plant construction costs (including the huge costs incurred from site-specific construction activities), and uses this analysis to then drive many of its technical and regulatory recommendations: including on the use of modularized construction methods, regulatory standardization and harmonization, and government support for rapid testing and prototyping of new reactor designs—all with a general aim to improve the economics for advanced reactors.  One of the report’s principle authors, Jacopo Buongiorno, discusses this further in his Titans of Nuclear podcast.

For more about any of the above topics, please contact the authors.

Blog author Sachin Desai, along with a member of the NRC staff, both acting in their individual capacity, recently published an article in the American Bar Association’s nuclear law publication entitled “Preparing for Advanced Reactors: Exploring Regulatory and Licensing Reform.”  The article reviews advanced reactor licensing reform efforts, discusses an NRC staff recommendation for a new, risk-informed rule for licensing new reactors (colloquially called “10 CFR Part 53”), and also explores a novel concept to adapt the NRC’s adjudicatory licensing process to reach initial licensing decisions on complex regulatory questions.

The first part of the article starts with useful background as to the NRC’s regulatory reform efforts to prepare for advanced reactors, including among other things the NRC’s Vision and Strategy statement on advanced reactor licensing, and Guidance for Developing Principal Design Criteria for Non-Light Water Reactors.  It then discusses a significant NRC staff paper to the Commission, entitled Achieving Modern Risk-Informed Regulation, which proposes creating an “optional, technology-inclusive, risk-informed, performance-based rule for reviewing the design and operation of advanced reactors.”   According to the article, the licensing path “could potentially become a new part of the NRC regulatory framework—a ‘10 CFR Part 53.’”  This is covered more in a prior blog entry here.

The second part of the article starts by describing the current NRC adjudicatory framework, which is based on a requirement in the Atomic Energy Act that “provides applicants, the public, and the NRC’s own staff an opportunity to make their safety cases before an independent adjudicatory body,” particularly the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel.  Currently this hearing process is most often used by citizens’ groups to challenge license applications, but the article posits that “the NRC’s adjudicatory process and the diverse pool of expert administrative judges” within these licensing boards (consisting of both legal and technical judges working together), may be “well suited to advanced reactor licensing.”

The article asks then whether there are circumstances in which specific, reasonable disagreements by the NRC staff and an advanced reactor applicant on a regulatory interpretation or licensing question can be brought before this panel (or a modification of it) to resolve on a fast timeline.  The licensing board can then issue a “tailored, precedential, decision on that particular disagreement,” with options for review by the NRC Commission.  Implementation of this approach will raise policy questions and likely require modification of the NRC’s regulations around adjudicatory proceedings, but it is nonetheless one option to explore further as licensing of advanced reactors approaches on the horizon.

For more about this blog post, please contact Amy Roma and Sachin Desai.

Earlier this month, a leading group of Canadian power companies and government entities (although not the nuclear regulator) issued a “Canadian SMR Roadmap,” an 89 page plan for Canada to become a leader in small modular and advanced reactor development (there is also a smaller executive summary).  Although the roadmap takes a look at a number of technical, commercial, and legal issues with SMR deployment in Canada, this entry focuses on some of the regulatory reform proposals outlined in the roadmap—to better understand what Canadian stakeholders think are the biggest hurdles to licensing advanced reactors above the 49th Parallel.  We discuss four regulatory reforms suggested in the roadmap, many of which compare with efforts going on here in the United States.

  • Environmental Reviews:  A key issue in the Canadian SMR Roadmap was reform of environmental impact reviews.  The roadmap strongly advocates for Canada to pass a revised Impact Assessment Act, legislation before the Canadian Parliament to modernize the national environmental review process.  In addition, the roadmap authors appear to advocate for additional tweaks to the environmental review process—including potentially exempting “applications to construct, operate, and decommission SMRs equal to or below an electric capacity of 300 MWe” from environmental reviews, on the grounds that such reactors have low environmental risk.  While there are numerous efforts ongoing in the US to reform US federal environmental review policies, exempting SMRs from US National Environmental Policy Act reviews has not been widely advocated for (although it is something the authors have explored).
  • Security:  The Canadian SMR Roadmap pays special attention to security at SMRs, noting that “the current regulations would require SMRs to incorporate security infrastructure comparable to today’s operating full scale nuclear power plants.”   The roadmap advocates for reform in this area to remove prescriptive requirements in favor of risk-based regulation.  Interestingly, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) may be ahead of the curve on this issue, with the NRC staff earlier this year sending to the NRC Commission an options paper on tailoring physical security requirements for SMRs and advanced reactors.  On November 19, the NRC Commission  approved the NRC staff moving forward with a limited-scope rulemaking to generally reduce excess physical security requirements for small modular and advanced reactors, given their inherent safety features.
  • Risk-Informed Rulemaking:  Apart from its specific focus on the security regulations, the Canadian SMR Roadmap advocates for the Canadian nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), to take a more risk-informed view to regulation, particularly on issues “such as staff training and emergency response.”  In regards to emergency response, the roadmap argues that the CNSC should adopt regulations “based on risk-informed criteria, not an arbitrary low [10MWt] limit on reactor thermal power.”   This seems to align with the NRC’s efforts to adopt risk-informed regulation for emergency planning for next-generation reactors, with the US regulator already moving forward with a rulemaking in this area.
  • Nuclear Energy Advisory Council:  The roadmap advocates for the creation of a Nuclear Energy Advisory Council (NEAC) to give direction to Canadian SMR nuclear policy.  The NEAC would be “composed of senior executives and ministers” and meet annually to focus on implementation of the SMR roadmap and related action plans.  This strikes a chord with a policy proposal previously put forward by the blog authors in the paper Back from the Brink: A Threatened Nuclear Energy Industry Compromises National Security.  This paper advocates for the US to adopt its own Nuclear Energy Advisory Council, also comprised of business leaders and government officers—although with more of a strategic advisory versus implementation role.  Compared to the Canadian version, the US NEAC would “advise the President and National Security Council on the commercial nuclear industry, mirrored after the National Infrastructure Council.”

The Canadian SMR Roadmap is a promising document that helps highlight Canada’s growing potential role in SMR and advanced reactor development.

And on the nuclear strategy front in the US, the Senate on Thursday November 29 is holding a hearing that will cover in part the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act (S 3422),, a significant piece of legislation that can help close many gaps in advanced reactor development (including testing and fuel cycle development).  We wrote about this important piece of legislation in a past blog entry available here.  The Nuclear Energy Leadership Act is designed to help the United States return to the lead in nuclear energy technology leadership.  The bill sponsors explain that the US has yielded this position to Russia and China–weakening our energy security, economic competitiveness, and national security.  The bill covers a range of activities, including funding research and development, and accelerating the deployment of advanced nuclear energy technologies.

Notably, both the Canadian and US activities show that advanced reactor developments warrant strategic government support at a national level.

For more about the issues discussed in this entry, please contact the authors.

Significant advances in fusion energy research in recent years have helped set aside the typical storyline that fusion—long considered the “Holy Grail” of energy—is “always 40 years away.”  Instead, as we have highlighted in prior blog posts, fusion innovators are receiving millions of dollars in public and private funds to support near term deployment and testing (i.e., around the next decade).  These innovators are supported by the likes of Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, the Breakthrough Energy Coalition and its investment arm Breakthrough Energy Ventures, large venture capitalists, and major energy companies.  As the industry has started to come into its own and looks towards testing and commercialization, last Friday a group of sixteen leading fusion ventures joined together to launch the Fusion Industry Association (“FIA”).

The FIA hopes to move the discussion of fusion energy into the mainstream.  The FIA has three specific goals, particularly focused on getting governments and the private sector to recognize the benefits of investing in and supporting the technology.

  1. Partner with Governments for Applied Fusion Research similar to what has been done to support other innovative energy and aerospace technologies.
  2. Drive Financial Support to help accelerate demonstration of fusion technologies, particularly leveraging public-private partnership models.
  3. Ensure Regulatory Certainty and appropriate regulation given the immense safety benefits the technology promises.

The members of the FIA propose very different fusion technologies, each with their own benefits and challenges.  Their coming together around a core set of goals can help make for more effective participation in the national and global energy policy discussion.  We look forward to following the development of this emerging industry.

For more about the emerging fusion energy industry, please contact the authors.