Nick Loris condensed his recent testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate, and Nuclear Innovation and Safety. You can see the full testimony here.

After two decades of flat demand, power consumption is surging. Grid Strategies forecasts 5.7 percent annual growth over the next five years, and the peak demand could be equivalent to 15 times New York City’s peak energy consumption.

Meanwhile, electricity prices are rising faster than inflation, and families and businesses across the country are feeling the effects. 

It’s clear we need more supply, and nuclear power can be part of the solution. It’s safe, clean, dependable, and scalable. The key question for policymakers and ratepayers alike is: Is it cost-competitive? 

While that is ultimately a question for the market to answer, there are reasons to be hopeful. The private sector is making big bets on nuclear, investing across companies and technologies, directly financing projects, and helping reduce the risk and cost premiums associated with advanced reactors. 

Encouragingly, there has been bipartisan recognition that federal policy has not kept pace with private-sector innovation and investment. Bills signed by both President Trump and President Biden helped address some of the government-imposed regulatory burdens that increase costs and slow deployment. 

This is a long-overdue shift: One toward a risk-informed, performance-based framework that preserves the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s core safety mission while cutting unnecessary costs and delays elsewhere. 

And it’s paying dividends. TerraPower’s Natrium reactor in Kemmerer, Wyoming, received its construction permit 9 months ahead of schedule and 11 percent under budget. In the coming months, the NRC will finalize several rules to further improve the licensing process and modernize outdated regulations.

However, now is not the time to be complacent. And the bill and discussion drafts under consideration before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee would build on that progress.

First, the Build Nuclear with Local Materials Act addresses the cost premium for construction materials in non-safety-related areas of a nuclear plant. The concrete, steel, and rebar used in nuclear power plants must meet strict quality assurance standards to be considered nuclear grade. 

>>>READ: America Needs to Fix Nuclear Economics, Not Just Go Smaller

These materials and components cost considerably more than alternatives, even when they are identical in performance and composition, because approval requires extensive analysis, testing, and documentation. The cost of nuclear concrete can be 50 percent higher than non-nuclear concrete, and in some cases, components can be 50 times more expensive. 

Another reason for the higher costs is the shortage of suppliers and less competition. When nuclear-grade materials and components are required, nuclear energy companies are, in many respects, captive customers, paying stadium- and airport-level prices when suitable suppliers can offer grocery-store-level prices for the same product. 

Expanding the use of commercial-grade materials will broaden the supplier base, increase competition, and enable local manufacturers and construction firms to participate in nuclear projects. 

Second, the RECHARGE Act would accelerate the deployment of advanced nuclear technologies at retired fossil-fuel facilities and brownfield sites by categorically excluding NEPA reviews, while keeping all NRC licensing requirements intact. 

These sites already have grid connections, transmission infrastructure, skilled workforces, and communities that understand energy development. The RECHARGE Act eliminates redundant reviews where the environmental tradeoffs are already well understood. 

In fact, we just saw a version of this in effect this week, where the NRC issued a finding of no significant impact for Dow and X-energy’s advanced nuclear project in Seadrift, Texas. The finding comes after an Environmental Assessment that took months, rather than an Environmental Impact Statement that would have taken years.

>>>READ: Reforming Radiation Standards to Unlock Nuclear Energy’s Full Potential

More efficient reviews like this will spur private investment, strengthen local tax bases, and position rural and industrial communities as hubs for the next generation of American energy and technological leadership. 

The reality is that the federal permitting system is overly complex, often redundant, and prone to litigation. While wholesale modernization is necessary, the RECHARGE Act represents a step in the right direction.

Third, the Enrichment Licensing Modernization Act addresses a vulnerability in our nuclear fuel supply chain. The U.S. imports roughly 80 percent of its enriched uranium, and despite efforts toward a complete ban by 2028, 20 percent still comes from Russia. 

Enrichment is safe and well-understood. America has the technology, capital, and human ingenuity to expand domestic enrichment capacity. Federal policy should help clear the path. 

This draft would allow at-risk construction to begin while licensing continues—entirely at the developer’s own risk, with no taxpayer exposure. It would also allow tailored Environmental Assessments rather than mandatory full Environmental Impact Statements and eliminate hearings when no party has requested one. These are common-sense reforms that improve timelines without touching the NRC’s core mandate. 

If the U.S. wants to be a leader in nuclear energy—to meet rising demand, revitalize industrial communities, and deliver clean, reliable power—we must build. 

And to build on time and on budget, we must fix the rules that make permitting and construction unnecessarily expensive and slow. 

The reforms under consideration before the committee will empower the industry to invest with certainty and to build with efficiency, all while maintaining strong public safety and environmental safeguards. 

The views and opinions expressed are those of the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of C3.