Let America build - A policy path to modernize energy permitting
Our team spends a lot of time on reliable, affordable, clean energy systems that run 24/7. These types of technologies are an integral part of our energy future, but with a growing economy and electricity demand doubling, we need MORE power.
This means building a lot of new nuclear, geothermal, and clean fossil power plants. We’ll also need immense new transmission and pipeline infrastructure to move energy around the country.
But we’ve got a ton of work to do in very little time.
Whether you are motivated by deep emissions reductions, furthering our nation’s energy security, or enabling the next generation of American manufacturing, the coming decades are essential. By many estimates, that means at least 10,000 new clean energy projects this decade alone. And, every one of those projects will require new permits to build.
Unfortunately, the U.S. has a world-class apparatus… for getting in the way.
Let me give you an example. The National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, calls for developers to measure the environmental impact of their projects. But NEPA was passed years before we had other laws with strict environmental standards like the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, or Endangered Species Act.
Each of those are important — but all together … permit reviews can spiral into extremely long efforts, spanning thousands of pages with duplicative analyses and dozens of bureaucrats required to sign off on each individual project. And, this is not even taking into account the time it takes for any local permitting or state regulations. While this system may have made sense 50 years ago, the surge in new energy demand requires a new way.
When we think about how to build tens of thousands of new clean energy projects, and how to balance speed and safety, it's obvious the U.S. needs a more predictable process.
At ClearPath, we always focus on solutions. Here are two that should be pretty simple:
First, grant immediate approval to projects on a site that have already undergone an environmental review.
Second, we must expedite court challenges so a final decision on projects is made in a timely manner.
Let me simplify both concepts.
Do you remember standing in line at the airport before TSA pre-check? That was brutal! Now, individuals who have proven they are not a risk can move through an expedited line.
Here’s another example.
There are mountains of evidence that some projects have little to no environmental impacts, such as an advanced manufacturing facility that produces parts for clean energy on a brownfield, or converting a retired coal plant to an advanced nuclear facility or siting a new geothermal plant at a depleted oil and gas well. These are the types of projects we should automatically permit to move forward.
Just like random screenings at TSA, we can audit the operators to ensure they’re complying with all environmental laws as we go. So new energy accelerates at no new environmental costs.
And for those projects that do need permits up front, we should ensure reviews are complete within 1 year and resolve any legal disputes within 6 months.
Under the current system, clean energy projects can suffer long delays, sometimes decades, largely because of obstructive litigation practices. We must strike the right balance while halting the never-ending cycle of frivolous lawsuits.
At ClearPath, we believe all of this can be done without rolling back environmental protections or eliminating the public’s opportunity to be involved in the review process. Even with these necessary changes, a project would still be required to comply with environmental laws during its entire lifetime.*
It’s a win-win. Let’s get building.
Vogtle Was a Smart Investment
In April of 2024, the second of two new AP1000 nuclear reactors – Vogtle units 3 & 4 – came online in Georgia. These reactors were an ambitious project, deploying a first-of-a-kind design to provide clean and reliable electricity to Georgia. This is a story of unwavering aspiration and perseverance. Before the reactors were ever even turned on, redesigns, bankruptcies, construction mistakes and more drove the final cost to double what was initially projected, delaying operation beyond the original 2016 and 2017 targets. Despite the challenges, Vogtle is an investment that will pay dividends for decades.
Building first-of-kind anything is hard, and the true story here is about how Georgia persevered through these challenges and secured a major investment in its future. Georgia made a significant investment in the Vogtle expansion, and in return, they will get clean, reliable energy capable of powering 1 million households and businesses 24/7 for decades to come. One evergreen benefit of this energy is its resistance to price inflation, fuel risks, and global economic conditions. The Vogtle reactors are a gift to the next generation in the state, capable of operating for the next 80 or even 100 years. Few, if any, other energy sources can provide this combination of attributes.
With the doubts in the rearview mirror, let’s look at the deal as a whole, compared to potential alternatives:
Incremental additions of solar power are cheap, but say Georgia wanted to procure a similar amount of 24/7 clean power using only solar, the storage required would balloon the price quickly. Solar with additional storage is already about twice as expensive as solar alone, but the attached battery storage only averages between one to four hours of output, as longer durations generally mean worse economics. This means Georgia would still need to build additional generation for “firming,” also known as backing up, to meet required reliability needs. However, even with all of these resources, this still “does not represent the cost of building a 24/7 firm resource.”
We strongly support a fully diverse grid — one that uses all energy sources. For those who say we can just use all renewables to power America aren’t looking at the big picture. Wind energy in the Southeastern United States isn’t as prevalent as in other parts of the country for the simple fact that it’s just not as windy. That’s why they are using more solar which makes sense. But, today, the largest percentage of 24/7 reliable power is gas turbines, so if Georgia had to use natural gas to back up solar, they would have needed to build four new combined cycle turbines the size of those at Plant Wansley in Georgia.
Today’s affordable natural gas is an innovation success story and has been a boon for the U.S. economy and deserves credit for a 20 percentage decrease in emissions. Natural gas is also low-cost, dispatchable power. Yet despite its strengths, solely relying on new gas power presents challenges as well. For instance, natural gas power is pipeline dependent and more gas would likely require more pipelines — not an easy lift. Gas is also largely driven by fuel prices, so today’s low prices are predicated on low-cost, reliable natural gas supply. This can create a significant commodity risk, especially over the comparable lifetime of a nuclear power plant.
For example, in Oklahoma, the state finalized a bond that will cost ratepayers $4.5 billion over the next 25 years to pay for gas supply during Winter Storm Uri when prices neared $1,200/Metric Million British Thermal Unit (MMBTU), while today it averages $2-3/MMBTU. In the same storm, Texas paid about $3.5 billion. And of course, to make this important power source low to no emissions, the U.S. must advance innovative natural gas technologies, as well as carbon capture and its associated infrastructure.
Finally, grid planners must also consider the lifecycle of these projects. A nuclear power plant's lifespan is more than double that of a gas or solar power plant and many times that of today’s battery technology. To cover nuclear power's longer operating period, new assets will need to be built, potentially several times over. This exposes future power supply both to normal inflation and significant supply chain risks.
Vogtle isn’t the only example where in hindsight, completing a project turned into a good deal. Millstone 3, a 1260MW reactor in Connecticut, had a famously embattled development process, including delays and at least seven cost increases. Today, that plant provides half of all Connecticut’s power and over 90% of its zero-emissions power. While the upfront cost felt high during a tumultuous construction in the 1980s, today, multipleanalyses find that Millstone and other nuclear plants like it bring down wholesale power prices in the region.
Similarly, Georgia paid a high upfront cost to complete the Vogtle reactors. But now that they’re built, the operational costs of a nuclear power plant are relatively small. The fully depreciated costs of existing power plants are about $32/MWh today. Georgia’s power will not just be clean and reliable for the next 80+ years, but also largely immune to price inflation and fuel risk. Like Millstone 3, this may mean keeping future prices much lower. Industry has responded to this: Georgia is experiencing an economic boom, winning a fifth of all new clean manufacturing projects, and the second–most data center capacity under construction in the country. The ability to provide clean, reliable, and affordable power — like nuclear energy — is an economic advantage, and Georgia just made an enormous investment in its future. The Vogtle tale is one of perseverance and success. Further nuclear deployments – while inevitably cheaper than a first-of-a-kind – will require large investments. These are investments in the future and should be seen as such.
TerraPower Breaks Ground in Wyoming, Clearing Path for New Nuclear
TerraPower broke ground on its Natrium reactor in Kemmerer, Wyoming. This is the first time in four decades that a company has started construction on an advanced reactor in the United States. Natrium is a sodium fast reactor with integrated molten salt energy storage. This exciting 345 megawatt (MWe) reactor can ramp up to 500 MWe, enough to provide reliable, clean power to 400,000+ homes for more than five and a half hours.
TerraPower is building this first plant through a public-private partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP), a concept ClearPath started working on in 2016 in partnership with congressional leaders like U.S. Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Idaho National Lab, Oak Ridge National Lab, and DOE.
L to R: ClearPath’s Chris Tomassi (a Kemmerer, WY native), Jeremy Harrell and Jake Kincer at the groundbreaking
ClearPath has played a role over the past seven years in building bipartisan Congressional support for the U.S. DOE’s ARDP. We supported the Trump Administration’s efforts to launch the program and select cutting-edge projects like this, and continue to advocate the program’s importance. TerraPower will be putting clean electrons on the grid by the end of this decade. It is a true bipartisan win for American clean energy. Developing the next generation of nuclear technology now is essential as power demand from industrials and data centers is skyrocketing across America.
Congratulations! If you have read our Nuclear Fuel 101, you are already well on your way to understanding the importance of the nuclear fuel supply chain. This second installation goes a bit further, discussing what happens after fuel is used, innovations in nuclear fuel and why new types of fuel are important for new reactor designs.
Innovative Reactors Demand Innovative Fuel
Most new advanced reactor designs incorporate passive and inherent safety features (like heat transfer) that remove the need for active, engineered safety systems (like a pump or valve). This allows designs to shut down naturally and safely in case of an event, like a total loss of power.
Advanced reactors are designed to be smaller, more affordable, safer, and more fuel efficient. Like other types of new reactors – fast reactors – can harness the energy from used fuel. This could reduce proliferation risks and decrease the volume of high-level nuclear waste by around 85%. Currently, the U.S. safely stores used nuclear fuel at more than 80 sites across 35 states.
Used Fuel Storage and Recycling: The Back End of The Nuclear Fuel Cycle
After nuclear fuel is used in nuclear reactors, there are a few options for managing the fuel.
Storage. When removed from any type of reactor, nuclear fuel continues to emit both radiation and heat. Once the fuel has reached the end of its useful life, the assembly is loaded into a nearby storage pool to allow the heat and radiation levels to decrease. After several years, the fuel may be transferred to naturally-ventilated storage, typically in dry casks like the ones shown below at the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant.
The Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant has provided jobs for 1,300 workers since 1990 and supplies Texans with 2,425 MWe, enough to power 500,000 homes.
Recycling. One factor that makes nuclear energy so unique is the ability to reprocess and recycle used fuel. In a reactor, uranium splits into two new atoms (or elements). Over time, these new atoms build up like dirt on a windshield until the fuel is no longer usable. Used fuel reprocessing removes that “dirt,” giving the remaining uranium a second life. Even after several years in a reactor, the fuel retains more than 90% of its potential energy. Globally, in 2019, recycled fuel replaced the need for more than 2,200 tons of new natural uranium, despite reprocessing capacity being limited to France, the U.K., Russia, Japan and India.
There are a number of innovations in nuclear fuel that are currently in early stage use or research, development and demonstration (RD&D) phases.
Recycling Innovation: MOX fuel is recycled fuel for existing reactors.
Mixed oxide fuel (MOX) is the second, third, fourth and even fifth life of the low-enriched uranium (LEU) from light water reactors (LWRs). Programs that leverage MOX fuel exist in Europe, Russia, and Japan. MOX fuel has been used commercially since the 1980s, and currently fuels about 10% of France’s nuclear plants.
Making MOX fuel requires mixing depleted uranium with plutonium. Depleted uranium is the less-valuable coproduct from uranium enrichment. Plutonium is produced naturally in the reactor’s fuel during operation and can be extracted from used fuel during reprocessing.
MOX fuel can be used in qualified existing reactors alongside fresh fuel. They decrease the overall amount of waste produced per megawatt, reduce the consumption of natural uranium by about 20% with each recycle and can be recycled up to five times.
Fuel Form Innovation: TRISO pellets are the safest form of fuel for advanced reactors.
Tri-structural isotropic fuel (TRISO) is an innovation in fuel form that makes it impossible for the fuel to meltdown. The idea behind TRISO fuel is to give each piece of nuclear fuel, no bigger than the tip of a pen, its own containment and pressure vessel, two vital safety features in a full-sized plant. This feature makes the fuel durable even at very high temperatures. TRISO particles remain securely intact up to 3250°F, a temperature that exceeds even worst-case conditions in a reactor. For context, high-temperature reactors operate between 1350 and 1750°F, well below the melting threshold for TRISO. The U.S. Department of Defense and NASA both use TRISO fuel for their upcoming reactor programs because of its exceptional safety features.
Fuel Composition Innovation: Thorium-based fuel could be used in addition to uranium.
Thorium as an alternative source of nuclear fuel has been a promising innovation over the past decade. Thorium occurs naturally as thorium-232. It is slightly radioactive, is about three times more abundant than uranium, and has a half-life that is three times the age of the Earth. In a reactor, it is possible to create more thorium than is used, although economic and technical hurdles remain.
India has established the long-term goal of a three-stage, thorium-based, closed-loop fuel cycle. Stage one involves pressurized water reactors fueled by natural uranium. In stage two, the used fuel from stage one will be reprocessed to recover plutonium, which will be used to fuel India’s fast reactors. Finally, stage three would involve fueling advanced heavy water reactors with thorium-plutonium fuel. Using thorium-based fuel could help diversify the fuel cycle, however thorium is expensive to extract, and additional RD&D is needed to capture its full potential.
Fuel Composition Innovation: Natural uranium can reduce waste and proliferation risk.
Another potential composition for nuclear fuel is natural uranium (i.e., unenriched uranium) fuel pellets. Natural uranium does not require enrichment, and enrichment infrastructure is required for making nuclear weapons; therefore, if a country wants to reduce proliferation risk, it can opt to use natural uranium as a fuel source.
Two schools of reactors can take advantage of natural uranium: heavy water reactors and fast reactors. The most famous heavy water reactor design is the Canadian CANDU reactor which first went online in 1977. Canada has exported CANDU reactors to Argentina, China, India, Pakistan, Romania and South Korea. There are 30 CANDU reactors in operation globally. British-designed Magnox reactors also use natural uranium fuel, and have been in operation since 1956. Because natural uranium is unenriched, the storage and reprocessing is more simple and less expensive than for enriched uranium fuel.
Fast reactors are designed to operate with high-energy, fast neutrons (imagine neutrons moving 9000 miles per second). Fast reactors are less common today than CANDU reactors but dominate the field of advanced reactors because they are up to 60 times more fuel efficient than today’s LWRs.
Recycling Innovation: Fast reactor fuel is more efficient and consumes waste.
Fast reactors were some of the first nuclear reactors built in the U.S. because they can extract more energy from fuel than traditional LWRs, and can use energy from material that would be considered “waste” in traditional LWRs. The Experimental Breeder Reactor (EBR-I and EBR-II) test facilities were operational from 1951 to 1964 and 1965 to 1994, respectively. EBR-I was the world’s first plant to generate electricity from atomic energy, and the combined test facilities successfully demonstrated a complete breeder reactor cycle with on-site fuel reprocessing.
France also took an early interest in recycling fuel in fast reactors. France’s Phénix prototype reactor, which operated from 1973 to 2009, was designed to maximize fuel utilization and recycle all of the plutonium it produced. The recycling facility, the Marcoule Pilot Plant has reprocessed a total 25 tons of fuel from the Phénix reactor.
Because some of the fuel was reprocessed multiple times, France was able to illustrate a closed-loop fuel cycle and demonstrate the value of the fast breeder reactor system.
Fuel form, composition and enrichment level create many combinations of fuel types that could service remote communities, military installations and massive metropolitan centers. Nuclear batteries power our space missions and nuclear reactors power our submarines, but the individual technologies taking advantage of that energy look drastically different.
Completely carbon-free, nuclear energy powers nearly 20% of U.S. electricity consumption using variations of the same fuel developed in the 1940s. More than 80 years later, new advanced reactor designs are gaining momentum and we could see them in the marketplace this decade. The fuels in development for these new designs enable the recycling of used fuel and prevent the reactor from melting down. Although the U.S. does not currently recycle any used nuclear fuel, in 2022 the Department of Energy awarded $38 million for twelve projects aimed at developing domestic recycling capacity.
Asking everyone to have a complete understanding of nuclear fuel is unnecessary, but it is important that people understand the magnitude of its potential to provide reliable, clean and affordable energy to our power grid.
The Nuclear Fuel Facilities At the Core of the Industry's Success
ClearPath is constantly seeking out top private sector innovators, determining the barriers to their commercial success, and helping cultivate the environment that allows them to scale-up. In some instances, there are companies doing incredible work to support a more well known industry, but are less known in the halls of Congress.
What is known – nuclear energy accounts for about 20 percent of total United States electricity generated each year. It’s the largest zero-emissions power source in the U.S. and the industry directly provides an estimated 100,000 jobs. While recent incentives and demonstration programs have created a pathway for more power generation, attention is turning to where we source and how we manufacture the fuel; and, the ever-looming question of what we do with the spent fuel, or as many call it — nuclear waste.
We recently went out to see firsthand some of the exciting work being done to support the industry from fuel manufacturing to unique waste storage and disposal solutions. The Southwest region of the U.S. is home to facilities like Urenco USA (UUSA), Waste Control Specialists (WCS) and Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), all of which play a vital role in shaping America's nuclear landscape. ClearPath, along with Third Way and Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, recently visited these sites to explore the nuclear energy fuel cycle and ways policymakers can expand domestic production.
Urenco USA - Uranium Enrichment
UUSA, nestled in Eunice, New Mexico, is the nation’s sole commercial-scale uranium enrichment facility. Originally planned for Louisiana, it found a home in New Mexico after receiving overwhelming community support. With a combined construction and operating license issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), uranium enrichment production began in June 2010.
UUSA supplies roughly one-third of U.S. uranium enrichment demand, a process that increases the concentration of energy-rich uranium in nuclear fuel. Another way to look at this: the amount of enriched uranium UUSA supplies could power every home in the USA for one day every two weeks. Enrichment companies like UUSA could take steps to increase domestic production following the recently passed legislation to secure the American fuel supply chain and ban Russian uranium.
Waste Control Specialists - Below Surface Disposal Next door in Andrews, Texas, is Waste Control Specialists (WCS), a low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) treatment, storage and disposal facility. WCS supports the Department of Energy (DOE), private entities, nuclear power plants across the U.S., hospitals and universities. The waste accepted here includes materials from research facilities, hospitals extracting isotopes for diagnosis and treatment as well as military equipment. They have only used 2.6% capacity and can continue operation for years to come.
Front Row L to R: Hamna Khan (Columbia University), Mary Neumayr (Urenco), Amanda Sollazzo (ClearPath), Frances Wetherbee (ClearPath)
Back Row: Niko McMurray (ClearPath), Matt Bowen (Columbia University), Jack Ridilla (ClearPath), Rama Ponangi (Columbia University), Natalie Houghtalen (ClearPath), Grace Furman (ClearPath), Rowen Price (Third Way)
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) - Deep Geologic Storage
DOE’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) recently marked 25 years since accepting its first shipment of transuranic (TRU) waste in Carlsbad, NM. WIPP’s mission is to provide permanent, underground disposal of TRU and TRU-mixed wastes, wastes that also have hazardous chemical components.
WIPP is the country’s only active deep geological radioactive waste repository and a global example of responsible waste management, including the site operations and safety and security culture required for the site to operate efficiently.
The TRU waste is stored 2,150 feet underground in the 250 million-year-old Salado salt formation, which provides a stable environment for the long-term disposal of the radioactive waste. Every year, the salt walls close in four to six inches until the rooms are sealed. This natural process will in time permanently prevent the release of radioactive materials into the environment.
L to R: Jack Ridilla, Amanda Sollazzo, Grace Furman, Frances Wetherbee, Niko McMurray, Natalie Houghtalen
Local Impact
Nuclear facilities provide not only always-on, reliable, clean energy, but they also bring significant value to the surrounding areas. UUSA brings over 240 full-time jobs and 130 long-term contractor jobs, in addition to giving $625,000 annually to support local education, culture and environmental projects. WCS boosts its local economy with 175 full-time jobs and has provided $18.4 million in taxes to Andrews since opening in 2012. WIPP provides 1,700 jobs to New Mexico and, in 2023, invested $500,000 in local education and businesses. Deploying new nuclear energy creates hundreds of new jobs at the power plant and at supporting facilities.
Supporting energy infrastructure in the U.S. is vital to the health and success of the growing nuclear energy industry. From uranium enrichment to power production and waste disposal, nuclear facilities are an important and beneficial piece of America’s clean energy future. ClearPath will continue to be on the front lines helping tell the stories of American innovators who are solving the big energy challenges.
Building the Global Nuclear Energy Order Book (RealClear Energy)
This op-ed was originally published by Real Clear Energy on May 22, 2024. Click here to read the entire piece.
The outlook for nuclear power is bright on the world stage. Global demand for clean nuclear energy is higher than we have ever seen. The U.S. and 20 allied nations pledged to triple global nuclear energy capacity by 2050 at COP28, and a multinational survey reaffirmed last year — the world wants new nuclear.
In Washington, D.C., bipartisan support for nuclear energy has never been greater. Propelled by the House passing the ADVANCE Act 393-13 this month and momentum for passage in the Senate, Congress deserves some credit this year for working to help speed up the deployment of next-generation reactors, fueling hope for an American future powered by clean energy.
This support is promising, but masks a concerning trend. While the U.S. leads the world in the development of innovative nuclear technologies, the U.S. has fallen behind China and Russia. As of May 2024, Russia and China collectively have 29 commercial reactors under construction. The U.S. has zero.
The prospect of reinvigorating production in the U.S. is exciting, but we have to think bigger to realize the promise of the next generation of nuclear energy — and now is the moment to capitalize. So, how do we get it done?
The climate debate sure looked different 10 years ago.
When I founded ClearPath in 2014, we looked at global temperatures, sea levels and the so-called “100-year weather events.” We studied the data AND watched the political discourse.
And we were concerned.
At the time, many advocates said we could only solve the climate challenge with 100% renewable energy and by starving the fossil energy industry. They said the government needs to solve the challenge; free-market innovations would be too expensive, and consumers and industry wouldn’t adopt them.
Advocacy for small modular nuclear was limited, few embraced carbon capture as a solution, and other game-changing technologies like long-duration, grid-scale storage were barely a glimmer.
Thankfully, conservatives knew there was a better way.
Over the past 10 years, the ClearPath family of entities has worked with private sector innovators and leaders in Congress to shape conceptual ideas into pragmatic policy, leading to the construction of real projects. These relationships have led to significant clean energy policy wins – from developing the moonshot Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program concept in 2016 to the inception of the 45Q tax incentive in 2018 and the Energy Act of 2020, which culminated with new legislation like the Better Energy Storage Technology (BEST) Act and the Advanced Geothermal Innovation Leadership (AGILE) Act.
Over the last decade, U.S. emissions have decreased by 15%, more than any other nation.
That hasn’t happened by chance, conservative clean energy leaders have catalyzed innovation policies:
Between 2014 and 2024, roughly 20 gigawatts of batteries, geothermal, hydropower, and nuclear, were added to the grid. These facilities generated approximately 36 million megawatt-hours of electricity, enough to power nearly 3.5 million homes annually, avoiding roughly 19 million metric tons of CO2.
In 2018 – A Republican-led Congress updated the tax code, increasing the credit value for carbon capture projects, broadening eligibility thresholds, and allowing DAC eligibility for the incentive. Since, 14 carbon capture and direct air capture projects are operating in the U.S., with 123 under development. Together, those projects could capture 156 million tons of carbon every year.
In 2019 – Congress and the Department of Energy began to focus on building advanced nuclear reactors. Today, we are building two new advanced reactors and at least nine more are on the way in addition to 25 new license applications expected by 2029.
In 2020, conservatives in Congress passed the Energy Act of 2020 – one of the biggest advancements in clean energy and climate policy that has created the clean energy innovation roadmap in over a decade.
In 2021 – Congress enacted the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), funding a wide range of clean energy demonstration programs.
Where is ClearPath today? The last decade has resulted in significant growth for the ClearPath family – both in size and impact. We’ve seen an 800% personnel increase and expanded our policy portfolio from primarily a nuclear and CCUS advocacy organization to 11 different policy areas. While we remain steadfast in our core technologies, we have added exciting new areas to our portfolio, such as tackling industrial emissions and agriculture and how we can deploy cleaner energy internationally.
In Washington, people and politics drive policy, and policy refines our heavily regulated energy system.
Recent polling conducted by Engagious and Echelon Insights shows 88% of voters believe climate change is happening, 74% want their Member of Congress to focus on clean energy, and 60% of votersbelieve innovation rather than regulation is the best way to reduce emissions.The leadership driving this seachange is remarkable, and here are just some of the federal lawmakers who are meeting the demand of their constituents and have championed clean energy policy over the last decade.
What’s next?
10 years into this dream, we have covered a lot of ground, but we still have quite the journey ahead. Many of the right policies are in place, but we need to get America building again. We need to get advanced nuclear reactors built, we need to capture carbon directly from the air, and we need to decarbonize heavy industry. Energy demand will double over the next decade, and one of the most important efforts everyone needs to get behind is updating our outdated permitting processes. Because if we continue to invest in novel technologies, and ensure that the projects currently under development are successful, then the U.S. will continue to lead the world in adopting clean energy solutions.
I mentioned that in Washington, D.C., people are policy, so when discussing ClearPath’s future, I must recognize how the organization is searching for the next generation of clean energy champions. ClearPath’s Conservative Climate Leadership Program (CCLP) actively recruits individuals passionate about climate and clean energy policy who want to work on Capitol Hill and drive innovative technologies to reduce global energy emissions.
We all hear a lot of talk about a clean energy future, and we know that success means putting cleaner, more affordable, and more reliable energy on the grid.
If there is one thing you can count on ClearPath doing for the next 10 years: supporting America’s free-market advantage. When American energy works, we all win…
Onward!
Private Industry Bets on Nuclear Energy
Most people think about energy in terms of their own use at home: for heating, lighting, cooking, and more. But, in the United States, residential consumption only represents 16% of total energy use. Commercial and industrial activities use three times as much energy. Power-hungry activities like data center operations and high-tech manufacturing underpin modern technology and must be able to run reliably without interruption. Constant operation means a 24/7 power supply is critical. Industrial processes like steel manufacturing and chemical production, which build cities and help grow food, need large amounts of process heat that is difficult to electrify. Energy is used all around us for more than just keeping our lights on.
Private corporations across various industries aim to achieve this with an even smaller carbon footprint. In the tech sector, companies like Microsoft pledged to be carbon-negative, and Google aims to operate using 24/7 carbon-free power by 2030. Nucor, the largest U.S. steel producer, pledged net-zero production goals by 2050 to provide a fully clean steel product. Building upon these commitments, in March 2024, these companies announced that they are partnering to develop a business model that will allow them to procure clean electricity from new technologies such as new nuclear.
While companies seek reliable and clean energy, utilities are struggling to keep up with exploding demand growth. These pressures drive a new trend — private industry interest in new nuclear energy deployments to power data centers and steel manufacturing.
Sending an email, searching the web or reading this blog requires connecting to a massive cyberinfrastructure, requiring constant power to operate seamlessly. These energy-hungry data centers contain servers that power cloud computing, data storage and novel AI technologies. A single server rack can use as much power as five U.S. homes, and “hyperscale” data centers house thousands of these servers. Data processing is a significant market for the United States: Loudoun County, Virginia, has more data center capacity than all of China. In 2023, data centers represented 2.5% of total U.S. electrical consumption. Today, grid planners expect the demand for energy in data centers to increase 2.5 times, a stat that has grown quickly since the introduction of AI.
Data giants like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon are looking for new, clean, firm power sources, such as nuclear energy, to meet rising demand from data centers. In June 2023, Microsoft partnered with Constellation Energy to provide 35% of the power for a data center in Boydton, Virginia and invested in fusion startup Helion, intending to provide power by 2028. Similarly, Google has invested in fusion research company TAE since 2014, developing research reactors to power its data infrastructure. Amazon acquired a data center park adjacent to the Susquehanna Nuclear Power Plant.
The interest in powering with nuclear isn’t limited just to newer tech companies. More traditional manufacturing companies see promise in nuclear reactors to provide reliable energy and heat for industrial operations in a way other clean technologies do not. Nuclear, like gas or coal, produces electricity by generating heat to boil water. Industrial processes can also use this high-temperature heat, which doesn’t work with non-thermal sources like hydro, wind, or solar.
Figure 2 Nuclear Process Heat for Industrial Applications
Existing and advanced technologies can produce heat at temperatures appropriate for various industrial activities
Other traditional industrial manufacturers like Dow promised to reduce carbon emissions by 15% by 2030 and reach carbon-neutral by 2050. Dow and X-Energy, through the ARDP program, plan to build four small modular reactors (SMRs) by 2030 to provide high-temperature process heat and electricity to their Seadrift production site. The proof of concept supported by Dow's investment will provide reliable energy while reducing carbon emissions by 440,000 MT CO2e/year.
Steel production alone represents 8% of energy end-use demand and 7% of total energy emissions. Nucor has turned to nuclear power to augment its production methods. In a series of investments, Nucor contributed $15 million to bolster the NuScale SMR in 2022 and $35 million to Helion in 2023 to deploy a fusion reactor.
Companies with significant off-grid power needs, such as upstream oil and gas development, are exploring the potential of microreactors. These reactors are small compared to traditional reactors or even small modular reactors (SMRs), but could provide relatively large quantities of reliable power, competitive in off-grid applications. Several microreactor companies are currently working to deploy reactors for these purposes.
Nuclear energy can be a key player in driving rapid growth and decarbonization in the industrial and commercial sectors. Traditional reactors can already provide large quantities of reliable, clean electricity, while several advanced reactors can provide high-temperature process heat or act as mobile generators for off-grid use.
The bottom line is private companies across various sectors recognize the importance of 24/7 clean energy, and the potential role nuclear can play in decarbonizing the industrial and commercial sectors while meeting the challenge of rapid load growth. Traditionally, nuclear energy deployment has been top-down and utility-led, but today, power-hungry private industries may serve as the demand driver for new nuclear power. Targeted federal support will allow these private investments to flourish, ensuring America's competitiveness in the global marketplace.
International Financing of Nuclear Energy
House Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee on National Security, Illicit Finance, and International Financial Institutions
Below is my testimony before the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Non National Security, Illicit Finance, and International Financial Institutions on January 17, 2024 in a hearing titled, “International Financing of Nuclear Energy.”
Good morning, Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member Beatty, and Members of the Committee. My name is Nicholas McMurray. I am the Managing Director of International and Nuclear Policy at ClearPath, a 501(c)(3) organization that develops and advances policies that accelerate innovations to reduce and remove global energy emissions. To further that mission, we provide education and analysis to policymakers, collaborate with relevant industry partners to inform our independent research and policy development, and support mission-aligned grantees. An important note: we receive zero funding from industry. We develop and promote solutions that advance a wide array of low-emissions solutions — including advanced nuclear energy – that must be brought to bear to achieve our climate and development goals.
I appreciate the opportunity to address the Committee today regarding the crucial role of United States leadership in the international deployment of nuclear energy. The U.S. has a long, proud history of global leadership in nuclear technology. In 1951, the National Reactor Testing Station (forerunner to the Idaho National Lab) produced the first electricity powered by atomic energy. In 1955, the U.S. Navy launched the first nuclear-powered ship, the submarine USS Nautilus. Two years later, the first full-scale commercial power reactor was built in Pennsylvania. In response to oil price shocks and supply insecurity, in the 1970s, the United States initiated one of the largest deployments of nuclear reactors in history, reaching a peak of over 100 operating units in the 1990s.
Today, the U.S. aims to renew its global leadership. Recently, the U.S. and over 20 allies pledged to triple global nuclear energy capacity by 2050. This commitment recognizes reliable energy, like nuclear energy, is a necessary component to reduce global emissions while meeting economic development goals.
The International Energy Agency’s (IEA) 2023 World Energy Outlook shows that existing policies will leave the world a far cry from the goal of tripling global nuclear capacity. In particular, the IEA projects that existing policies will only increase global nuclear energy capacity by about 48% between 2022 and 2050. Tripling global nuclear capacity will be a significant undertaking that not only involves deploying new nuclear power plants domestically but also revitalizing the U.S. approach to building American reactors abroad.
I am excited to see this Committee address this monumental issue at such a timely moment. Achieving the global pledge to triple nuclear energy requires significant improvements to U.S. institutions as well as the modernization of the regulatory environment and export controls to reduce unnecessary red tape. This Committee plays a vital role in ensuring financing is available, especially to the developing world, for the global deployment of American clean energy technologies. Targeted investments in clean, reliable, affordable nuclear energy will contribute to enhanced energy security, geopolitical stability, and emissions reductions. With this in mind, I am going to highlight four important topics today:
First, the global competitive landscape for nuclear energy projects, particularly concerning non-market competitors like China and Russia. Despite rapid advancements in U.S. nuclear energy innovations and U.S. leadership in operating nuclear plants, the nation has unfortunately surrendered its role as a global market leader for exporting nuclear projects. The U.S. must intensify its efforts, employing strategic initiatives, to reclaim this leadership.
Second, adversaries such as China and Russia prioritize nuclear energy as a geopolitical tool, and the U.S. must remain competitive. Legislation like the International Nuclear Energy Act creates a Director of Nuclear Energy Policy to coordinate government agencies. Similarly, the International Nuclear Energy Financing Act would give Congressional direction to support nuclear at multilateral institutions like the World Bank. Both bills could be the first steps toward creating a more proactive and ambitious diplomatic stance to support and promote nuclear exports.
Third, securing financing for U.S. projects competing against foreign state-owned enterprises is critical. For the U.S., this holds particularly true in strategically significant countries. Eliminating barriers to accessing funds at International Financial Institutions (IFIs), and empowering U.S. government agencies like the Export-Import Bank (EXIM) and the International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) can support these ambitions. At the DFC, resources to build nuclear expertise and authorize expanded authorities will allow for greater investment and support for nuclear energy abroad.
Fourth, burdensome regulatory requirements and slow licensing practices pose obstacles to deployment in the U.S. and abroad. Multiple agencies are involved in certifying nuclear exports, which then often need to be licensed again in the host country. The current system is simply not scalable to the ambition of these strategic goals. Proactive measures are essential for harmonizing licensing practices and building trust between the U.S. and partner countries.
The global competitive landscape for nuclear energy
Today, state-based actors like China and Russia are constructing more reactors each year, both domestically and internationally, and establishing more leadership in the global nuclear market. Although the U.S. still has the world’s largest domestic operating nuclear fleet, China is on its way to passing us. China currently has 55 reactors in operation and plans to build 23 new reactors across the entire country. In contrast, the U.S. has 93 in operation and only one under construction and nearing operational status – Vogtle Unit 4 in Georgia.
Recognizing the strategic advantage, these competitors are actively developing export markets for their domestic reactor technologies, a cornerstone of Russia’s foreign policy and likely to become one for China as well. When China or Russia sells a reactor to another country, the state-owned enterprise is the vendor, which receives significant diplomatic support and its deals are nearly fully financed by state banks on generous terms. For example, Russia provided Egypt with $25 billion – around 85% of the full cost – in financing on generous terms. Russia loaned Bangladesh 90% of the full cost of the Rooppur project with a cap on the interest rate. China recently announced it would provide the full cost, $4.8 billion, of a reactor it is building in Pakistan, and even gave a $100 million discount on the construction. Besides the geopolitical influence and economic value, these export markets play a crucial role in sustaining domestic industries.
Globally, Russian and Chinese reactors are in development in NATO-ally countries like Hungary and Turkey, as well as in significant U.S. partners like Egypt, Pakistan, and Argentina. Since 2000, Russia and China have collectively constructed 64 new reactors abroad, whereas the U.S. has built only five. As of March 2023, only six reactors were under development abroad by U.S. nuclear companies. Recent announcements to build three U.S.-designed reactors in Poland and three more reactors in Canada bring that total to 12 U.S.-designed reactors under development today.
New and forthcoming reactors worldwide (as of March 2023)
Competitor dominance of the civil nuclear export market challenges nuclear safety and safeguards standards, as well as undermines diplomatic partnerships and various U.S. geopolitical and economic priorities. The longevity of nuclear power plants, which can operate for 60 years or more, are a strong tool to secure our own partnerships for energy diplomacy. China and Russia offer a full-service suite of options, including construction, fueling, operation, waste disposal, and decommissioning. This approach can create decades-long dependencies for each reactor built by China and Russia. However, thanks to our strong civil nuclear industry, American companies can still provide services in a country that has a foreign reactor. For example, Ukraine’s fifteen nuclear reactors are of Russian design, and provide about half of the country’s electricity. This creates a significant dependence on Russia for nuclear fuel. However, a few months ago, Westinghouse manufactured and delivered new non-Russian fuel for Ukraine.
The last several years brought significant upheaval to global energy markets. Disruptions related to COVID, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and escalating tensions with China underscore the critical importance of energy security, not only for the United States but also for allies and partners worldwide. In the aftermath of the shortages of natural gas in 2022, many countries are cautious about making substantial commitments that would tether their energy security to Russia. For example, in 2022 Finland canceled a deal for a Russian-built reactor. Additionally, the escalating debt crisis stemming from Chinese investments may prompt countries to seek new partners.
Fortunately, the United States is well-positioned to seize this opportunity. Innovative companies are developing cutting-edge advanced nuclear technologies, and the U.S. remains a global leader in nuclear operations. This mirrors the success the U.S. is having in the natural gas sector. Public-private partnerships created the innovation in hydraulic fracturing that drove the massive shale boom. Today, the U.S. is by far the world’s leading producer of natural gas and exporter of liquified natural gas (LNG). This is a boon for the U.S. economically and geopolitically and drives significant emissions reductions. This dynamic could repeat itself in the advanced nuclear market, where a vibrant and dynamic advanced nuclear industry, led by innovative private companies and supported by public-private partnerships, is emerging in the United States.
For many countries, the United States continues to be the partner of choice. Initiatives at the U.S. Department of State and Department of Energy (DOE), such as the Foundational Infrastructure for Responsible Use of Small Modular Reactor Technology (FIRST), have expanded the U.S. footprint of nuclear cooperation agreements. The global economic and policy landscape is primed for the United States to rapidly demonstrate and deploy these clean, reliable, and U.S.-made technologies.
While the U.S. and its allies have publicly committed to tripling global nuclear energy capacity, realizing this goal requires more than pledges alone. The U.S. must modernize its approach to keep pace with the global market to gain a competitive advantage. Congress can provide further direction to various government agencies by focusing on three major topics: 1) The U.S. needs an export strategy; 2) Supercharge U.S. export finance tools; and 3) Remove red tape that prevents scaling up nuclear technology.
The U.S. needs an export strategy
The expansion of China’s Belt and Road Initiative and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have underscored the enduring need for the U.S. to be the global leader in energy exports. This leadership is essential not only for domestic energy security and achieving climate objectives but also for those of U.S. partners. Effectively countering China and Russia in this arena will require coordinated action by EXIM, the DFC, and others working in conjunction with partners and allies.
Unfortunately, the United States’ current approach to commercial diplomacy and export support for nuclear energy is fragmented and lacks cohesion. The process of exporting a nuclear reactor involves coordination among multiple entities, including Departments of State, Energy, Commerce, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, EXIM, DFC, the U.S. Trade Representative, the National Security Council (NSC), and others. While some initiatives, like the FIRST program, have attempted to coordinate these agencies and advance commercial cooperation with U.S. allies abroad, they are tied to individual Presidential administrations. Actions like institutionalizing the FIRST program would codify these gains and create a platform to improve upon. Ultimately, for U.S. companies to compete with the state-backed Chinese model, organized support across the federal government and the private sector is crucial.
Legislation has been introduced, such as the bipartisan International Nuclear Energy Act (H.R. 2938), sponsored by Representatives Donalds (R-FL) and Clyburn (D-SC) to address these challenges. This legislation aims to formulate a civil nuclear export strategy to counter the growing influence of Russia and China. The proposed solution involves developing a national strategic plan that advocates for partnerships with allied nations and encourages coordination among civil nuclear nations in areas such as financing, project management, licensing, and liability. The bill emphasizes the importance of prioritizing safety, security and safeguards as foundational elements for a successful and competitive nuclear export program. Additionally, the legislation establishes an Office of the Assistant to the President and Director of Nuclear Energy Policy to oversee the implementation of the strategy to ensure cohesion and coordination. Currently, the World Bank and other similar IFIs lack expertise in nuclear energy projects and, consequently, refrain from funding them. The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury serves as a Governor of the World Bank, providing the U.S. with an opportunity to leverage this influence. The International Nuclear Energy Financing Act, introduced by Representatives McHenry (R-NC) and Hill (R-AR), would require the United States Executive Director at the World Bank to advocate and vote for financial assistance for nuclear energy. The bill would also permit U.S. representatives at other international financial institutions – including regional development banks for Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America – to push for nuclear projects. The World Bank and other multilateral development banks play a significant role in infrastructure planning around the world, so getting them engaged in nuclear energy will be instrumental in increasing global deployment.
Supercharge U.S. export finance tools
Since 2000, China has rapidly ascended as a pivotal financier in global energy, committing more than $234 billion to some 68 strategically significant nations. China channeled a staggering 75% of these investments toward projects in coal, oil, and gas. Between the years 2016 and 2021, China’s financing of global energy initiatives outpaced the combined contributions of all major Western-backed Development Banks. Chinese authorities have expressed their intent to construct up to 30 nuclear reactors abroad by 2030, with agreements already finalized in Argentina and ongoing negotiations with Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, and other nations.
Once China nears completion of its ambitious domestic nuclear buildout, it is reasonable to expect to see a sharp pivot abroad and a surge of Chinese nuclear reactor exports, complete with predatory lending practices and coercive, non-market tactics. Generous state-sponsored financing is likely to support these projects. Earlier this year, China and Pakistan celebrated the completion of the Karachi Huanglong One 1.1 GW nuclear power plant, backed by Chinese financing at a cost of $2.7 billion. Unfortunately, this is a more competitive price point than comparable U.S. commercial ventures, so the U.S. needs to compete in other areas – such as operations, safety, security, technical and regulatory expertise, and fuel.
The dynamic and innovative U.S. nuclear technology companies are not operating in a fair and open market. It is imperative that the U.S. level the playing field for its clean energy exports by advancing thoughtful reforms to existing agencies. As two of ClearPath’s advisors — DJ Nordquist, Former World Bank Group Executive Director, and Jeffery Merrifield, Former NRC Commissioner — noted in a Foreign Affairs piece, last year, an Egyptian presidential advisor told a group of U.S. lawmakers that countries like hers want dependable energy financing and would welcome American investment, but the U.S. hasn’t been showing up to meet that demand. That’s why Egypt, a major non-NATO ally of the U.S., instead selected Russia’s Rosatom to finance and construct its new nuclear plant. The El Dabaa nuclear power plant is already under construction and will likely lock Egypt into a relationship with Russia for decades. Improvements to existing agencies are needed to compete globally. EXIM is designed to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. exporters in the global marketplace. In the December 2019 reauthorization of EXIM (P.L. 116-94), Congress directed EXIM to establish a “Program on China and Transformational Exports” (see Sec. 402) with the intention of countering China’s state corporations’ business practices by expanding EXIM’s mandate to support exports in transformational sectors; however, it currently excludes nuclear technologies.
Proposed legislation such as the Civil Nuclear Export Act of 2023 (CNEA), sponsored by Senators Manchin (D-WV) and Risch (R-ID), seeks to address this gap by including nuclear projects in the “Program on China and Transformational Exports.” CNEA introduces several measures aimed at enhancing the ability to provide competitive financing options and compete effectively in emerging markets globally. This adjustment is expected to provide additional support to nuclear projects facing competition from Chinese state corporations. This legislation would also raise EXIM’s default rate limit from 2% to 4%, which would allow EXIM extra flexibility to support larger nuclear power projects.
Similarly, the DFC plays a pivotal role in bolstering U.S. clean energy exports by providing finance for highly developmental projects, including energy infrastructure. Established by the bipartisan BUILD Act of 2018 and formally incorporated in late 2019, Congress envisioned the DFC as a powerful successor to the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), equipped with broader authorities and a greater capacity to invest in burgeoning foreign markets. These unique authorities include the ability to make long-term loans, take equity investment positions, and exhibit more flexibility than EXIM regarding the types of projects it can support. Notably, in 2020, the Trump Administration lifted the DFC’s ban on supporting nuclear energy projects, highlighting its evolving role in facilitating the advancement of clean energy initiatives.
Until now, the DFC has only engaged with U.S. nuclear export projects on a preliminary basis. The corporation lacks nuclear-specific operational experience and dedicated staff with expertise on projects in the nuclear sector. This limitation hampers its ability to assess the technology risk and intricacies of these complex projects. The DFC’s CEO, Scott Nathan, recently highlighted another significant constraint; the current budgetary scoring system fundamentally undermines the equity investment tool granted to the DFC by Congress, preventing the agency from providing more flexible financing options. Lastly, DFC’s cap of $1 billion for individual investments may impede the agency from supporting larger nuclear projects. While DFC has signaled support for the Romanian and Polish nuclear power projects, the cap restricts the level of support to significantly below the likely project cost.
The DFC is due for reauthorization in the Fall of 2025. This presents an opportune moment to reassess, refine, and enhance the corporation, its tools, and its mandate to better align with U.S. strategic energy objectives. Without strengthening entities like DFC, the U.S. puts itself and its private-sector innovators at a strategic disadvantage against foreign state-owned enterprises looking to build abroad.
Remove red tape that prevents scaling up nuclear technology
Tripling the world’s nuclear capacity is a massive undertaking that will require constructing hundreds of new reactors. This could entail obtaining numerous regulatory approvals and licenses in the United States alone. However, challenging regulatory barriers, lengthy licensing and permitting timelines, and bureaucratic inefficiencies have proven to be significant obstacles to the development and deployment of advanced nuclear reactors here in the United States. Overcoming these challenges is crucial for successfully implementing ambitious nuclear energy expansion.
Introducing innovative U.S. nuclear technologies to the world is essential for fulfilling the tripling pledge and aligning with geopolitical security goals. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will almost certainly need to license a reactor design in the U.S. before a country would be willing to build it. Especially for countries looking at nuclear energy for the first time, they are likely inclined to prefer designs with a proven safety track record in the U.S. An efficient and agile U.S. regulator is therefore fundamental, not only for domestic deployment but also for ensuring the competitiveness of the U.S. nuclear industry in the international market. The NRC anticipates at least 13 current and potential applications by 2027, and it’s important that these move forward expeditiously.
The NRC is responsible for overseeing the safe operation of nuclear power in the United States. To achieve ambitious goals, it is vital for the NRC to attract and retain the right staff and capabilities. Additionally, modernized structures, processes, and policies need to be established to efficiently and effectively review and license the diverse array and volume of new nuclear technologies. This modernization aims to provide a predictable regulatory environment while maintaining reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety.
Even after the NRC licenses a reactor design and the reactor is constructed and safely operated, it then still must receive export approvals, and be licensed by the other country’s regulator. A company seeking to export a reactor to a partner country faces a multi-step process. It must obtain export licenses or authorizations to export the reactor, fuel, and other related equipment from the NRC under 10 CFR Part 110, from the Bureau of Industry and Security at the U.S. Department of Commerce for equipment subject to EAR (Export Administration Regulations), and then by the DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration under 10 CFR part 810. Furthermore, a corporation can only transfer nuclear technology to countries in which the Department of State has negotiated a “123 Agreement.” This intricate regulatory framework underscores the complexity involved in exporting nuclear technology and highlights the necessity of complying with various governmental entities.
It is essential for nuclear reactors to be well-regulated to prioritize safety, security, and non-proliferation. Modernizing the NRC is a critical initial step. Yet, beyond that, there is a need for harmonizing and streamlining international regulatory processes to facilitate the efficient and expeditious deployment of nuclear reactors on a large scale.
The NRC can contribute to the goal of tripling nuclear energy worldwide by taking on greater international cooperation and relationship-building activities. The NRC could conduct joint reviews of regulations with international partners to allow for better alignment between U.S. and foreign regulatory bodies. The NRC could also incorporate and leverage harmonized license reviews performed by non-U.S. regulators into its reviews, and lay the groundwork for other regulators to do the same. New nuclear energy will have a global impact, and regulatory practices can be shared to strengthen international partnerships, accelerate the learning curve of global regulators to improve safety and security, and ease the burden on U.S. innovators deploying internationally. Further Congressional action and direction is needed to undertake a full-scale international initiative to lower regulatory barriers to export markets.
Conclusion
An all-of-the-above clean energy strategy is the only viable path for achieving global emissions reduction targets, which means the world needs to quickly deploy clean, reliable, affordable energy like nuclear power. At a time when China and Russia are ramping up financial support, the U.S. needs to reinvigorate not only its own financing tools, but also call upon IFIs like the World Bank to reassess their nuclear energy policies, including opportunities and challenges, rather than simply defaulting to “no.”
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. ClearPath is eager to assist the Committee in developing innovative policy solutions to ensure U.S. leadership in international clean energy financing. We applaud the Committee for taking on this critical task to help ensure the appropriate action, including policies that will help advance innovative technologies to provide clean, reliable, and necessary energy to the United States and the world.
