US BUDGET REQUEST | POLICY & FINANCE
Above: US domestic energy resources include uranium, as well as fossil fuels Source: S. Hermann/F. Richter from Pixabay
research into green technologies, including a programme to eliminate the use of food crops in the production of transportation fuels. Both executive orders required reports within weeks and no doubt fed into a second wave of orders focused directly on the nuclear sector. On 23 May, EO 14301 on Reforming Nuclear Reactor
Testing at the Department of Energy complained that “commercial deployment of new nuclear technologies has all but stopped”. It promised a pilot programme outside existing National Laboratories for reactor construction and operation, including reactors ‘‘under contract with and for the account of’’ the Department of Energy (DOE). This promised approval of “at least three reactors… with the goal of achieving criticality in each of the three reactors by July 4, 2026”. It included evaluation of the reprocessing and recycling of spent fuel from the DOE and Department of Defense.
However, the pressure to reduce government spending
remains clear. Despite the urgency of developing new reactors, the Office of Nuclear Energy will see its budget reduced by $408 m, if the Budget Request is granted. The proposal “reduces funding for non-essential research on nuclear energy to focus on what is truly needed to achieve national dominance in nuclear technology”, which would be developing innovative concepts for nuclear reactors and researching advanced nuclear fuels. Despite the EO’s reallocation of new reactor pilot programmes to take place outside the Idaho National Laboratory, the facility’s funding is maintained. Funding for renewable energy programmes in the
‘Green New Deal’ will be reduced by 80%, consistent with a Presidential Memorandum pausing all onshore and offshore wind leasing and permitting. The Budget Request also “restores the name and function of the Office of Fossil Energy”, saying its original purpose was funding for research into technologies that could produce an abundance of domestic fossil energy and critical minerals. However, its funding is cut by $270m. EO 14301 said that “Our proud history of innovation
has succumbed to overregulated complacency” and Executive Order 14300, also published on 23 May, directly
addressed reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It complained that “The NRC charges applicants by the hour to process license applications, with prolonged timelines that maximize fees while throttling nuclear power development” and said that the NRC’s “fundamental error” was risk aversion. A team from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was tasked with reorganising the NRC to speed up licence applications. However, the US NRC had already planned to reduce its fees for assessing advanced reactor designs, and published its proposed revised fees in the Federal Register on 19 February. A reduced hourly rate for advanced nuclear reactor applicants and pre-applicants was required by the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act (the ADVANCE Act) of 2024. For advanced nuclear reactor applicants, section 201 of the Act requires the NRC to apply reduced fees to the NRC review of the Qualifying License Application and its review of the Qualifying Licensing Project Plan, including a construction permit application. This will be effective from 1 October.
Although the NRC’s funding is granted by the government,
it is recouped from the industry in the form of annual fees. This year, for example, NRC has proposed to increase the annual fee for an operating reactor from $5,336,000 (in 2024) to $5,359,000, with additional fees for spent fuel storage and reactor decommissioning up from $326,000 (in 2024) to $341,000. Activities in the DOE and DOD are funded directly and form part of the Budget Request. In the Request, the administration proposes to cut the Environmental Management (EM) programme by $389m, although this includes a $178m reduction because responsibility for the Savannah River site in South Carolina will be transferred from the EM programme to the National Nuclear Security Administration. This is because new plutonium production capabilities are to be developed. The environmental management programme performs activities at 14 active cleanup sites and operates the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, New Mexico. The Budget maintains the Hanford site in Washington at the 2025 enacted level but reduces funding for various cleanup activities at other sites. ■
www.neimagazine.com | July 2025 | 23
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45
