Harris or Trump: Who's Better for our Nuclear Future?

Image: Dalle 3

Underpinning costs of goods and services, is the cost of energy. According to a July poll from Statista, one of the most important issues for voters in 2024 is reducing inflation and the cost of living. As a source of scalable, clean, dispatchable power, nuclear energy represents a viable pathway to maintain lower energy costs without sacrificing environmental progress. 

Despite this opportunity, there has been very little reporting on where the presidential tickets stand on the topic of nuclear power. Here is our take on what a Harris-Walz or Trump-Vance administration could mean for the future of nuclear power in the U.S. 

What a Harris-Walz Administration May Mean for Nuclear Energy

As a senator and presidential candidate, Kamala Harris hasn’t said much about nuclear power. One of the only quotes directly concerning nuclear power that can be found is from a CNN Town Hall in 2020. Harris said: 

“So the biggest issue that I believe we face in terms of nuclear energy is the waste and what are we going to do with that. We have to make sure that this is not about the federal government coming in and ... making decisions about what each state can do in terms of the nuclear waste issue which is the biggest part of the concern about nuclear energy.”

When pressed further, Harris did not say that she supported phasing out nuclear power. While this wasn’t a ringing endorsement, it was not nearly as egregious as other presidential candidates who called for a nationwide moratorium on nuclear power. Harris’s strategy of ambiguity was also shared by Vice-President Biden in 2020 who called for embracing all clean technologies, but did not talk specifically about nuclear power. 

Harris’s running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, has long been a vocal supporter of atomic power. Back when he was a member of the US Congress, Walz called on Minnesota’s state legislators to reverse a ban on nuclear power. During his governorship, however, Minnesota’s moratorium has remained intact. While Walz perhaps could have pressed more to rescind this policy, the onus rested largely on democratic leadership in Minnesota’s House Energy Committee, which was unwilling to consider legislation on the issue. To his credit, Walz endorsed a feasibility study passed by the Minnesota Senate, which would have examined the economic and environmental potential of deploying advanced nuclear power in the state. Unfortunately, this legislation was ultimately omitted in omnibus negotiations between the two chambers. 

As Harris and Walz draft their policy platform, we believe it is most likely that they follow the Biden-Harris blueprint on nuclear power, which, with support of nuclear advocates, garnered several legislative wins for nuclear power, including:

• The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which provided funding to the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program and allocated $6 billion to the Civil Nuclear Credit (CNC) Program to keep existing nuclear power plants online. CNC funding was utilized solely by Diablo Canyon to fund maintenance and upgrades for its 20-year extension.

• The CHIPS and Science Act allocated approximately $1.69 billion for advanced nuclear technologies, including $800 million for research and demonstration, $390 million for university research infrastructure, $220 million for university collaborations, $400 million for DOE advanced materials research, and additional funding for NASA's nuclear propulsion program, while also prioritizing low-enriched uranium use and isotope production research.

• The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which pumped more than $240 billion into clean energy, primarily through tax credits and subsidies. Specific to nuclear power, it allocated a production tax credit of $.03 per kilowatt-hour for nuclear power plants, which increased the economic outlook of the existing fleet and rendered the CNC moot. The IRA also appropriated $700 million for the production of high-assay, low-enriched uranium (HALEU) and $150 million for the Office of Nuclear Energy through 2027. 

• The Nuclear Fuel Security Act (NFSA) established new programs and funded existing ones at the Department of Energy to bolster the supply of low-enriched uranium (LEU) and HALEU. 

• The Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act authorized the phase-out of Russian uranium imports by 2028. Prior to the bill’s passage, America's uranium enrichment was largely dependent on Russia, which owns 47% of the global enrichment supply. The Russian import ban also unlocked $2.7 billion in funding for programs created in the NFSA. 

• The Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy (ADVANCE) Act which included reforms to speed up environmental reviews for nuclear power projects, modernize licensing pathways, and increase international collaboration and competition within the industry. 

With the exception of the IRA, these bills all enjoyed broad bipartisan support. 

In addition to these legislative wins, the Biden administration spearheaded the pledge to triple global nuclear power capacity at the United Nations’ annual climate conference last year. During these meetings,, the U.S. also signedan agreement with France, the U.K., Canada, and Japan to mobilize $4.2 billion to bolster the global supply of uranium. The current administration also advanced a consent based siting initiative, funding several consortia to investigate the best ways to identify and engage with communities with respect to hosting the nation’s used nuclear fuel. This represents an effort to break the federal logjam that has held up meaningful progress on proper waste stewardship, a long standing issue for energy justice advocates, including Harris, the party's nominee. Most recently, the Biden administration’s Department of Energy allocated $1.5 billion to restart the decommissioned Palisades nuclear power plant in Michigan and is currently considering the restart of Three Mile Island Unit 1 in Pennsylvania and Duane Arnold in Iowa. 

What a Trump-Vance Administration May Mean for Nuclear Energy

Donald Trump’s position on nuclear power appears generally favorable, although his recent public statements have been confusing. Despite some ambiguity in his personal views, we can review the actions of the previous Trump administration, which notched several policy wins to advance domestic nuclear energy such as: 

• The Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act of 2017 which amended the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to “update the mission and objectives of DOE’s civilian nuclear energy R&D, and commercial application programs to speed up the development of advanced reactors in the U.S.”

• The Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA) directed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to establish a technology-neutral licensing pathway for advanced reactors, capped NRC fees for existing reactors, and made NRC fee collection more transparent and predictable.

• The Energy Act of 2020 which was passed in Division Z of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. The Energy Act funded R&D programs for all energy sources, including nuclear power. One of the most notable programs created in the bill was the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program which allocated $160 million to TerraPower and X-energy to demonstrate and deploy their Natrium and Xe-100 reactors, respectively. The ARDP also awarded funding to risk-reduction technologies and advanced reactor concept projects. The Energy Act created the HALEU Availability Program at the Department of Energy. 

Similar to the Biden administration’s legislative victories, these bills were passed with broad bipartisan support. In addition to legislation, the Trump administration restarted the Transient Reactor Test Facility at INL after a 23-year hiatus, launched the Molten Salts in Extreme Environments program to study molten salt reactor technology, and provided $3.7 billion in loan guarantees for Vogtle 3. 

Though not a major focus, JD Vance did signal support for nuclear power in his 2022 senate campaign, saying, “If you really think climate change is a problem, and even if you don't, we should be building more nuclear plants in this country. They're safe, they're clean, and we're not. And that's a big federal policy.” 

With only a year and a half in office, Vance’s voting history is not extensive but he did vote for the ADVANCE Act. The other two notable nuclear bills during his tenure—the Russian uranium import ban and the Nuclear Fuel Security Act—were passed via voice vote so there is no formal voting record for the senator. 

While officially denied as the future policy platform for the republican ticket, the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 proposes to streamline regulation to make building new nuclear plants easier, along with similar support for fossil fuels businesses.

The Consensus

Both the Trump and Biden administrations oversaw notable legislative victories for nuclear power. While both administrations’ Department of Energy launched important programs and funding initiatives, the majority of the nuclear energy victories over recent years have been spearheaded by Congress. Luckily, nuclear power is increasingly enjoying bipartisan support by voters and policymakers so this progress is unlikely to wane soon. 

This is not to say that a potential Harris-Walz or Trump-Vance administration would not have an impact on the domestic nuclear energy industry. The Executive Branch can pursue international trade agreements, enter into partnerships to increase exports of nuclear technology, and prioritize specific initiatives in its budget requests to Congress. 

All of these responsibilities could have an outsized impact on inflation, which is at least partially responsible for the scuppering of NuScale’s UAMPS project in Idaho along with other new energy projects, including offshore wind. High tariffs and increased trade barriers, which both Trump and Biden have implemented, could keep inflationary pressures high, increase costs, and reduce investment in the sector. 

Perhaps the most significant differences in the future nuclear policies between the competing tickets is not a matter of degree, but rather in their motivating principles. Democratic nuclear support has been explained by a desire to decarbonize rapidly while supporting labor and environmental equity issues. These rationales are highlighted in the IRA, which offers its maximum credits to prevailing wage construction in existing energy communities, and in the DoE’s renewed efforts to address spent fuel storage by engaging directly with affected communities through its consent based siting agenda. Republican support, on the other hand, has focused more on addressing the economic challenges facing nuclear today, by lowering the regulatory hurdles and funding research projects, with an emphasis on (re)establishing Americas competitive position in the global nuclear industry.

Given the current bipartisan support for atomic power in the halls of Congress, and the recent record of pro-nuclear policies by administrations of both parties, it appears that the future of nuclear energy under either a Harris-Walz or Trump-Vance administration would be bright.