A recent headline in the energy trade press would not likely have caught the attention of the advanced nuclear industry: “Trump’s DOE punishes Obama-era solar success story.” A casual reader might quickly dismiss the story as indicative of a Trump Administration bias against renewable energy. The details reported in the story, however, convey a far different message—one that is great significance to the many advanced nuclear technology companies that are responding to DOE’s funding opportunity announcement for advanced nuclear development.

The E&E News article reports that a company by the name of 1366 Technologies accepted millions of dollars in DOE funding to develop a process to reduce the cost of producing silicon wafers. In return, it made certain commitments routinely required of recipients of DOE technology funding: to engage in substantial U.S. manufacture of the technology, to disclose to DOE patents produced with DOE financial assistance, to give DOE a royalty-free license for government use, and to give DOE so-called “march-in rights” to license the technology to others if the funding recipient fails to use the technology itself.

According to the published story, DOE has sought to enforce the commitment 1366 Technologies made to build its solar wafer manufacturing plant incorporating the DOE-funded technology in the U.S., specifically in upstate New York. Delays in obtaining a wholly separate DOE loan guarantee are said to account for a decision by 1366 to instead build its first plant in Asia. E&E News reports that DOE has responded with a submission to the United States Trade Representative suggesting that the failure to comply with the U.S. manufacture commitment should be weighed in considering a request by 1366 for exemption from the 30 percent tariff that generally applies to foreign manufacturers of solar panels. DOE is also reportedly evaluating its options with respect to 1366’s failure to disclose patents it filed while it was accepting DOE financial assistance. Under DOE intellectual property (IP) rules, the failure to make a required disclosure could result in a loss of rights in those patents.

This is not fairly characterized as an instance of the Trump Administration attacking the solar industry. Rather, it represents a continuation of the practice that the Obama Administration and others before it pursued (albeit with varying degrees of ardor) of ensuring that the American taxpayer gets the benefit of its bargain for assisting in the advancement of energy technologies. That funding is designed to advance U.S. competitiveness in energy technology and energy manufacturing. In DOE’s view, allowing the IP that results from the taxpayer investment to be shipped abroad for commercialization can defeat the purpose of the taxpayers’ investment. DOE’s views are supported by statute (in particular, this is the intent behind the Bayh Dole Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 200 – 212).

This is why the advanced nuclear technology industry should be paying close attention to the 1366 case. The FOA for advanced nuclear technology puts great emphasis on the desire to rebuild U.S. nuclear manufacturing capability. DOE has recently announced its first round of awards under the FOA. Additional applicants have submitted in the second round, and many others are preparing to submit one or more applications over the five years that DOE has said the FOA will remain open. The FOA represents a great opportunity to make important advances in nuclear technology prowess and to restore the U.S. nuclear supply chain to its past pre-eminence. That is what DOE expressly seeks to do. Therefore, it is important to understand and to put in place a program to assure compliance with the “strings” that are attached to the DOE money.

More than 10 pages of the lengthy FOA are devoted to the applicable IP rules. The eyes of an enthusiastic applicant might easily glaze over when they get to those 10 pages, but that would be a mistake. The rules reflect the implementation of statutory requirements, and they are unique to government-funded IP. They may be unfamiliar to those schooled in standard IP rules and practices associated with filing for patent rights. The ultimate commercial success of developing a great new technology may depend on understanding the obligations, managing the risks, engaging with DOE candidly when unanticipated challenges arise, and of course internalizing what we all already know: there really is no free money.

Applicants for DOE funding worry a lot about the government royalty-free license and the march-in rights (which the government has never exercised). However, the story about 1366 Technologies shows that those who accept federal funding to develop their technologies should have far greater concern about meeting the commitments they make to manufacture the technology in the U.S. and to disclose the patents they develop with government funds. In our experience, DOE is open to discussion and negotiation, within the constraints of its statutory obligations. However, DOE has demonstrated its willingness to employ at least some of the powerful enforcement tools it has at its disposal to enforce those obligations if it concludes the circumstances warrant such action.

In short, it is important to understand and take seriously the substantial U.S. manufacture and patent disclosure obligations that come with a financial assistance, because DOE does.

For more information, please contact Mary Anne Sullivan.

The start of the month has proven to be an exciting one for nuclear innovation in D.C.  A number of legal and regulatory activities have taken place which have implications for the next-generation nuclear industry, just a few of which are noted below.  (And for those at the ARPA-E conference, see our blog author Amy Roma speak today at the 2:15 panel “Quantifying Technical Risk for Advanced Nuclear Reactors”).

  • Last week was “Nuclear Innovation Week” in D.C. It consisted of three events highlighting both nuclear innovation and legal/regulatory reform: (i) Third Way’s Annual Advanced Nuclear Summit, (ii) the Nuclear Energy Institute’s (NEI’s) Nuclear R&D Summit, and (iii) a joint symposium hosted by the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear, NEI, and the Electric Power Research Institute.  Recordings of events from the Third Way summit are available online, and Amy spoke there on the topic of “Will the US Be a Global Leader in Advanced Nuclear Energy.”
  • In Congress, the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act (S.97) passed the Senate.  The legislation would help move advanced reactor concepts forward by encouraging the creation of a fast neutron test reactor, as well as a user facility called the National Reactor Innovation Center.  While it is unclear how money will follow, it is a step in the right direction and recognizes the critical need for test facilities for next-generation nuclear reactors. Of its other more notable elements, the bill would also push forward an “Advanced Nuclear Energy Cost-Share Grant Program,” under which DOE can make cost-share grants to applicants for the purpose of funding a portion of NRC licensing fees, including both pre-application and application reviews.
  • The NRC issued Regulatory Guide 1.232, “Guidance for Developing Principal Design Criteria For Non-Light-Water Reactors.” As we discussed when the draft regulatory guide came out, this is a critical guidance document for non-light water reactors.  Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 sets for the general design criteria for NRC-licensed reactors, which are essentially the bounding safety requirements every new reactor has to meet.  These requirements, however, are designed for light-water reactors and do not apply well to non-light water designs (e.g., Criterion 14 sets requirements concerning reactor “pressure” boundaries, but many advanced reactors would not operate above atmospheric pressure).  There are three appendices to the report, which set forth general “advanced reactor design criteria,” as well as specific design criteria for sodium-cooled fast reactors and modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactors.  This guidance document, which attempts to update the NRC’s general design criteria to address this disconnect, is the product of a years-long DOE-NRC effort, paired with industry and public input.

And the month is not letting up.  This week is the NRC’s annual Regulatory Information Conference, where advanced reactors are taking center stage.  This week is also the ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit, with Amy speaking on the panel, “Quantifying Technical Risk for Advanced Nuclear Reactors” (2:15 Tuesday).  ARPA-E has established a program to fund enabling technologies for next-generation reactors, called “MEITNER.”  The program seeks to help nuclear innovators leapfrog in development by providing advanced modeling and simulation tools, access to subject matter experts from nuclear and non-nuclear disciplines, and collaborative design assistance.  APRA-E is in itself an novel concept for how to commercialize technology research, and uses unique funding mechanisms to more efficiently fund energy innovation.

For more on any of the above topics, or on what else is going on in the nation’s Capital in support of nuclear energy, please contact the authors.

Nuclear power has had a busy year in 2017.  One of the most important trends for preserving the existing fleet of operating nuclear power plants has been the financial commitment  by US states to support nuclear power operating in their states and preserve their largest source of carbon-free power—and the thousands of jobs that go with it. This represents a significant reversal in state policy towards nuclear power, which traditionally has been left out of state programs promoting low or carbon free power—despite the fact that 60 percent of the carbon free power in the U.S. is generated by nuclear power. And the new state involvement has the potential to be a game-changer for next-generation reactors.

To highlight some of the key state activities from this year:

  • New York’s Clean Energy Standard and Illinois’s SB 2814, with their Zero-Emissions Credit (ZEC) programs, came into effect this year.  These programs represent among the first significant state efforts to  compensate nuclear power for its environmental benefits, and has helped keep a large number of nuclear power plants operational. Ohio has also introduced legislation to implement similar ZEC-type programs.
  • Federal district courts separately upheld both New York’s and Illinois’s ZEC programs against federal pre-emption and Constitutional challenges. Both decisions have been appealed, but nonetheless allow the state programs to continue in the interim.
  • Connecticut passed legislation that would allow nuclear power to compete directly against other zero-carbon resources in certain circumstances.
  • New Jersey introduced and advanced legislation to support nuclear power through “nuclear diversity certificates,” which would support the nuclear reactors for their environmental and fuel diversity attributes.

The core of many of these programs is valuing the benefits of nuclear power using the “social cost of carbon” framework. The social cost of carbon represents a potential measure of the harms caused by carbon emissions (and therefore, the value of carbon avoided by zero emissions generation). It was developed by a federal government interagency working group and has found itself increasingly referenced as part of state climate initiatives.

Although these programs directly benefit the current light water reactor fleet, it also signifies a larger trend by states to put nuclear power on an equal footing to other forms of low or zero-carbon generation sources.  This trend cannot be ignored by the advanced reactor industry. Just as renewable energy grew through state-level efforts to support the industry through renewable energy credit programs and portfolio standards, next generation reactor developers may want to look to states along with the federal government as potential sponsors for first-of-a-kind reactor projects.

These activities also explore the myriad different legal routes states can pursue to support the environmental and societal benefits of nuclear power. The U.S. energy grid is an ecosystem with many state, regional, and federal actors all working together to provide electricity at low cost and in accordance with legitimate policy goals. Disputes are likely to arise (and have arisen) as to where the borders between state and federal involvement. But that does not change the fact that states have always had a role in the in the promotion and regulation of nuclear power. An opportunity now exists to redefined that relationship, and for a new generation of state leaders to reengage with a new generation of reactor developers, for the benefit of all involved.

For more on state legislative activities affecting nuclear power, please contact the authors.

On Wednesday, November 15, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff published a revised and final regulatory basis document in support of its rulemaking to reform emergency planning requirements for small modular and advanced reactors, including medical isotope reactors.  This rulemaking promises to significantly reduce costs for next generation nuclear plants by employing individualized, risk-informed requirements as opposed to rigid deterministic ones.

Fifty-seven individuals, companies, and organizations commented on the draft regulatory basis document.  The NRC staff made a number of edits to respond to the comments, including further incorporating risk-informed concepts into the text of the regulatory basis, and increasing discussion of the agency’s framework for establishing the size of emergency planning zones for new reactor designs.  According to the NRC’s rulemaking schedule, a proposed rule is due to be published early 2019, with a final rule in 2020.

This action by the NRC coincides with exciting developments for the US Department of Energy.  This week the Transient Reactor Test Facility (TREAT) at Idaho National Laboratories successfully completed low-power operations after being brought out of standby since 1994.  As explained in industry press, the restart of TREAT is a big success story for the agency, which refurbished the facility a year ahead of schedule and $20 million under budget.  TREAT specializes in testing new reactor fuels under heavy irradiation conditions, to see how they perform particularly in accident scenarios.  Testing new fuel designs is a linchpin to commercializing new reactor designs, as many of them rely on completely new concepts for nuclear fuel.

TREAT may also be getting company.  This same week, the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology approved an exciting new bill markup, HR 4378, the “Nuclear Energy Research Infrastructure Act of 2017.”  This piece of legislation tries to deliver on repeated calls to build a new test reactor in the United States.  It calls for a fast-neutron test facility to be completed in the mid-2020s that supports (among other things) high-temperature testing, testing of different coolant types, medical isotope production, and which is designed to be upgrade-able over time.  Funding is set aside, with $35 million in 2018, scaling up to $350 million from 2023 to 2025.

For more on any of these topics, feel free to contact the authors.

Last week China announced the launch of a company to build twenty (20) floating nuclear power stations.  Russia continues to move forward with its floating nuclear power station, which are to be mass-produced at shipbuilding facilities and then towed to areas in need of power.  In fact, it is working towards initial fuel load on its first floating reactor.  Politics aside, these developments highlight a trend in nuclear power, which is the growing interest to power our cities with smaller, more flexible  reactors—which could be located offshore.

China and Russia are not the first to suggest the concept of sea-based reactors.  The world’s first operational nuclear reactors were naval reactors for submarines, and nuclear reactors continue to power submarines and aircraft carriers around the world.  In the commercial power space, a floating nuclear reactor effort called the Offshore Power System project was explored in the 1970s to provide power onshore, although it eventually did not move forward.  Since then, Russia has taken a lead role, constructing the Akademik Lomonosov, a floating reactor that will be towed to Pevek in Russia’s Eastern half for power generation.  Private enterprise has also taken interest in the concept.  For example, a company called ThorCon is proposing a molten salt reactor power that would be located on a ship and deploy-able around the world, called the ThorConIsle.  However, China’s effort may ultimately prove to be one of the more extensive ones.  The company will be formed by five entities including the China National Nuclear Power Corporation, and will have an initial capital of $150 million.

The legal, policy, and regulatory issues posed by floating reactors are as interesting as the technology.  The location of the floating reactors next to other countries is of course a key concern. The Akademik Lomonosov had to change where it would be fueled due to concerns by Norway.  Some are alleging that the Chinese reactor project is part of an effort to help boost control of the South China Sea.  The transit of floating nuclear reactors–which do not propel the vessels they are on–by neighboring countries raises legal issues that would need to be navigated.  In addition, just as the siting of wind turbines offshore has at times generated strong local opposition, similar grass-roots opposition could arise to challenge the siting of floating reactors located offshore.  These challenges can be overcome, but should be considered early on in project development.

The regulatory framework in which a private company would construct a reactor would also need to be examined.  For example, in the United States, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) Standard Review Plan for examining the safety of nuclear reactors does not necessarily envision floating reactors.  That does not mean a floating reactor could not get licensed in the United States, however, and in fact the Offshore Power System, and the licensing of the NS Savannah provide some useful precedent.  The NS Savannah was licensed by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, the predecessor agency of the NRC, and although this was built to be a “goodwill ship,” a goal in the construction of the ship was to meet civilian safety requirements so the vessel could be usable by the public.  Moreover, the NRC works with the Department of Energy (DOE) to provide technical support for DOE’s oversight of the U.S. Nuclear Navy.

Extending civilian use of nuclear power to the ocean presents questions, but also significant opportunities, for both the developed and developing world.  Please do not hesitate to contact the authors if you wish to learn more.

The House of Representatives quickly passed HR 1551 Tuesday, after its approval out of committee last week.  This bill represents a bipartisan effort to promote nuclear power development in the United States by removing the deadline on the nuclear Production Tax Credit, and allowing tax credits to be transferred in certain cases.  The text of the bill can be found here.

If there are any questions on the legislation, please contact the authors.

Both Congress and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) moved forward last week with significant programs to support the development of nuclear power in the United States. Congress took a critical step towards extending the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for nuclear power, and DOE announced nearly $67 million in new grants for nuclear power research.

On Thursday June 15, 2017, the House Committee on Ways and Means approved H.R. 1551, legislation designed to essentially remove the deadline on eligibility for the nuclear PTC. This bill is not only very important for the four AP1000 nuclear reactors under construction in Georgia and South Carolina, but potentially also for next-generation nuclear plants. These plants can take advantage of the remaining credits left over after the AP1000 projects are completed (from the 6,000 MW available under the current tax credit); the credits would normally expire on January 1, 2021. The bill can be found here.

The day before, on Wednesday June 14, DOE announced nearly $67 million in grants awarded towards advanced nuclear energy research from a series of funding programs. The grants include:

  • $37 million under the “Nuclear Energy University Program” to support “university-led nuclear energy research and development projects” and also fund “reactor and infrastructure improvements” towards the nation’s 25 university research reactors;
  • $11 million towards three “Integrated Research Projects,” which are complex research projects led by a coalition of “universities, industrial and international research entities, and the unique resources of the DOE national laboratories”;
  • $6 million in research towards “advanced sensors and instrumentation, advanced manufacturing methods, and materials for multiple nuclear reactor plant and fuel applications”; and
  • $12+ million towards projects taking advantage of “Nuclear Science User Facilities” to “investigate important nuclear fuel and material applications.” Five of these projects are industry-led and thus take advantage of the GAIN Initiative, which provides industry with a means to access facilities and resources “across the DOE complex and its National Laboratory capabilities.”

If you have any questions about the nuclear PTC or DOE research programs, please contact the authors.

Published reports indicate that as many as 18 reactor designers are looking at the possibility of siting their first facility at Idaho National Laboratory, DOE’s lead laboratory for nuclear reactors. From time to time, there are similar expressions of interest in DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Savannah River Site.

DOE facilities have much to recommend them for such an undertaking, including incredible nuclear expertise near-at-hand, locations that are both remote and friendly to nuclear undertakings, and plenty of open space. At the same time, it is important to recognize the unique challenges that come with such sites.

Entering into a site use permit with DOE requires an understanding of certain “immovables,” including: DOE mission requirements, present and future; DOE obligations to state regulators, particularly environmental regulators; past uses of the sites that may not yet be remediated, such as environmental contamination or unexploded ordnance; and appropriations law restrictions, which mean that DOE cannot spend money to address an issue until Congress appropriates the money for that purpose.

There are also discontinuities between nuclear safety, security and liability approaches applicable to DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that have to be accommodated. These could affect matters as diverse as site access, transfer of ownership and radiation exposure standards. Likewise, dealing with two federal agencies that have different roles will complicate compliance with certain laws that apply equally to both of them, such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act.

Finally, there are also unique financial considerations arising both out of sharing common services and buying services from DOE.

None of these issues are insoluble, but it will take time and flexibility in approach to reach agreement. A reactor designer looking at a DOE site should go into it with eyes open and a large measure of patience for the negotiation that will be required.

Hogan Lovells has experience with negotiating these types of unique agreements with DOE. For additional information please contact one of the authors below.

Mary Anne Sullivan
Dan Stenger
Amy Roma
Sachin Desai

Last Thursday the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee reported out of committee the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act of 2017 (bill S.97).  This legislation will “enable civilian research and development of advanced nuclear energy technologies by private and public institutions” and represents a significant opportunity for advanced reactors.  It is now one step closer to a full Senate floor vote.

This comes on the heels of a different advanced reactor bill, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act of 2017 (bill S.512), reporting out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee a week earlier.  Confused about the multiple advanced reactor-related bills moving forward in Congress?  Check out our prior post to learn more about them.

On Thursday, a team of eight U.S. Senators introduced S. 512, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act.   As described in a press release by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, this bill tackles a number of issues affecting the licensing of advanced reactors.  It promises to “establish[] new transparency and accountability measures to the commission’s budget and fee programs,” “develop the regulatory framework necessary to enable the licensing of advanced nuclear reactors,” and “improve the efficiency of uranium regulation,” among other things.  The text of the bill can be found here.

S. 512 builds off of a prior version of the bill introduced in 2016, numbered S. 2795 (see a prior post on this legislation here). Among some of the changes from the 2016 version, S. 512 contains new sections on uranium recovery and transfers. It also adds a new focus on the licensing of new types of nuclear reactor fuel—for example, it now asks that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission evaluate “strategies for the qualification of advanced nuclear reactor fuel, including the use of computer modeling and simulation and experimental validation.”

A similarly-named bill, the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act, was introduced in Congress earlier in 2017 (S. 97 and H.R. 431). You can see our blog post on this legislation here.  The Senate version of the bill, which was referred to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, shares some of the same sponsors as S. 512.  The Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act appears to focus more on R&D and the use of national laboratories to assist nuclear energy innovators.  On the other hand, S. 512, which is broader in scope, focuses more on NRC licensing.

The Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act is an exciting piece of legislation.  We will continue to inform readers as it moves through the legislative process.