Assessing the Election’s Impacts on Nuclear

Nuclear energy has enjoyed enduring bipartisan support across both Democratic and Republican administrations for years now. The Congress has passed, with overwhelming bipartisan majorities, bills aimed at modernizing and accelerating commercialization of new nuclear.

Nevertheless, in 2024, the two presidential candidates bring potentially unconventional approaches that may differ from the standard positions of their respective parties. Republicans have long valued America’s nuclear capacity and have seen the need for the US to maintain leadership to boost both national security and to expand our ability to export our technologies. They recognize that the U.S. needs to counter the geopolitical influence of adversaries like Russia and China which are offering to help developing nations with nuclear power as a means of increasing their influence within those countries.

Democrats have also, if more recently, come around to support nuclear. Both the Obama White House and the Biden Administration have provided broad support for the industry and particularly for the acceleration of next-generation nuclear technologies and American leadership in the energy transition. Front and center of their support is the recognition that nuclear power is a critical, differentiated component of a reliable, 24/7 low-carbon energy grid. They support its expansion primarily as a mechanism to meet growing energy needs and fortify grid reliability while reducing carbon emissions and addressing climate change, in tandem with renewables.

The question then of which candidate is more likely to support the continued acceleration of nuclear power is thus wrapped up with policies relating to energy security, fossil fuels, geopolitical competition with Russia and China, and support for addressing climate change. The Inflation Reduction Act passed in 2022 and signed by President Biden marked the Congress’ single largest investment in the economy, energy security and climate change and is widely seen as the most important piece of climate legislation ever passed. It simultaneously rebuilds the U.S. industrial capabilities while incentivizing the growth of clean energy technologies including domestic nuclear power. It is already making an enormous and beneficial impact on the U.S. nuclear indsutry.

Kamala Harris, while possibly more progressive than Biden, has shown her support for Biden’s approach to incentivizing the clean energy transition through the IRA, Biden’s signature piece of climate legislation, which has received staunch support from industry. She is unlikely to make many if any changes to the IRA’s clean energy technology-neutral Investment Tax Credits and Production Tax Credits or reduce the billions in loan guarantees available through the Loan Program Office, which have already stimulated significant investment in protecting and restarting existing reactors.

Because of Biden’s Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act’s Civil Nuclear Credit program, California is proceeding with the relicensing of Diablo Canyon, Holtec has chosen to restart, rather than decommission, Michigan’s Palisades nuclear power plant, Constellation has inked a deal with Microsoft to restart Three Mile Island Unit 2, and NextEra Energy is actively considering the restart of Duane Arnold. Meanwhile, Google has signed a deal to buy power from advanced nuclear reactors being designed by Kairos Power and Amazon has signed a similar deal with X-energy, marking the first corporate purchases of next-generation nuclear, thanks to highly motivating tax and financing incentives available through the IRA and LPO.

Harris is clearly committed to addressing climate change. There is no evidence that she rejects the clean energy tech-agnostic approach developed during her term as Vice President, which levels the playing field for nuclear energy as a clean energy source. Harris recognizes the geopolitical importance of America’s ability to compete with Russia to produce our own nuclear fuel supply and to provide nuclear technologies to developing nations seeking to build their clean energy capacity but wanting to remain free of Russian or Chinese influence.

In contrast, Donald Trump has repeatedly called climate change a “hoax,” and/or a good thing and cares little about reducing U.S. or global emissions. He previously walked away from the Paris accord and would likely try to repeal, roll back or dilute the IRA. He’s publicly allied himself with the fossil fuel industry and—in exchange for donations—has promised to roll back EPA regulations and help them “drill, drill, drill.”

There is almost no doubt that Trump would step the U.S. away from its leadership role on climate and this time, that may mean reversing the U.S.’s pledge to triple the amount of nuclear power. This would seriously undermine both the U.S. nuclear industry’s momentum to expand to meet growing demand as well as international progress. Given Trump’s overt courting of Putin, he may be disinclined to rebuild the U.S.’s nuclear fuel production capacity or seek to accelerate or support American efforts to build nuclear projects internationally in competition with Russia.

None of this would be good for nuclear power. Any potential efforts to rollback the IRA would slow restoration, development and deployment of reactors. Boosting the fossil fuel industry, whether through supporting expanded access to federal land or price manipulation to improve profitability would have severe impacts on the energy transition. Trump’s recent acknowledgement that he didn’t believe nuclear was safe also belies the stated “commitment” to nuclear energy expressed by his surrogates and gives considerable fodder to those who persist in opposing nuclear. His shoot-from-the-hip, truth-be-damned leadership style and embrace of conspiracy theorists, contrasts starkly with Harris’ stated willingness to consult with scientific experts and even give those who disagree with her a seat at the table.

In sumary, Trump’s likely propensity to undermine the IRA, oppose climate action and backtrack on US pledges to triple nuclear, his support for expanding fossil fuel production and his continued disdain for science and technical experts, poses extreme risks to the momentum generated within the nuclear sector over the last few years. Trump’s ignorance of nuclear energy’s exceptional safety performance make him unlikely to provide Oval Office leadership either to the industry or the NRC in support of the bipartisan ADVANCE Act, signed into law by Biden. 

In contrast, a Harris Administration would likely remain on the current climate glideslope for leadership, technology-neutral funding and the U.S.’s nuclear tripling momentum as stimulated by the Biden Administration. It may be that a Harris Administration does not prioritize nuclear’s growth or add billions in new accelerants as Biden has done, but she will not try to trash it. Having been briefed by senior energy advisors over the last four years about the importance of nuclear, she is well-informed and understands the importance of Biden’s initiatives for addressing climate.

Based on this analysis, those who support an expansion of nuclear power and enduring progress towards transitioning away from fossil fuels should thus prefer to see Harris elected, rather than Trump, and the existing policies continued.