Source: https://www.pexels.com/photo/low-angle-photo-of-nuclear-power-plant-buildings-emtting-smoke-3044470/
By Jackson Henry, S26 Environmental Clinic student
U.S. electricity demand is surging, and is projected to grow by as much as 80% by 2050. Nuclear energy offers a proven solution to provide firm, carbon-free, and sustainable electricity to meet this increasing demand. But until recently, nuclear regulation has been largely overlooked in policy discussions, leading to questions about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) ability to review and approve new reactors. For nuclear power to scale alongside growing electricity demand, it will require a regulatory process that can efficiently handle a greater number of applications and technologies while preserving public trust.
Since the outset, the Trump Administration has emphasized the importance of reforming nuclear energy regulation. Executive Order 14300, “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” outlines the Administration’s agenda, which focuses on improving the speed and consistency with which the NRC can approve reactor licensing and operations. The order also contemplates new regulatory frameworks for advanced nuclear reactors and large-scale revisions to its existing regulations, guidance, and risk assumptions.
Until recently, it was unclear how that agenda would be implemented. However, on February 4, 2026, the NRC announced an internal restructuring that would reorganize the agency around three business lines: new reactors, operating reactors, and nuclear materials and waste. Each business line will assume licensing and inspection functions for their respective responsibilities. Essentially, the goal is that integrating licensing and inspection functions within each business line will increase accountability and reduce duplicative work within the NRC.
In addition to restructuring the NRC, the Administration is using the Department of Energy (“DOE”) to expedite the development of advanced nuclear technologies. This allows certain qualifying government reactors (those used for research, testing, or national-security) to be exempted from NRC oversight and other federal regulations while still subject to DOE regulation. For example, on February 2, 2026, the DOE published a notice establishing a new NEPA categorical exclusion for certain “advanced nuclear reactor” actions. NEPA generally requires federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of proposed actions prior to making decisions, consider reasonable alternatives to proposed actions, and respond to public comments on proposed actions. Lastly, procedural defects in the NEPA review process may be litigated, which can result in permits being revoked or revised. The new categorical exclusion will exempt qualifying reactors from NEPA review.
While these reforms may expedite nuclear reactor development, they raise concerns about how they are being implemented. For example, when the NRC announced its reorganization into business lines with integrated licensing and inspection functions, it characterized the change as an internal management decision and provided no opportunity for public comment. As a result, it is unclear how the change supports efficient application review or retains safety requirements from when licensing and inspection were separated.
Similar questions arise with respect to substantive regulation. The DOE recently made significant revisions to its previous orders on reactor safety, environmental safety, and security without providing public notice or describing the bases of such decisions. These revisions were found after being reported on by the press and were met with criticism from scientists and policy experts. Greater transparency when modifying substantive regulations can boost public confidence, enable the regulator to catch potential oversights, and improve their durability across future administrations.
The DOE’s NEPA exclusion raises a similar set of concerns. In practice, NEPA is the primary way for the public to learn about a project’s environmental impacts and engage in the permitting process. Narrow exclusions for sensitive research projects or national security are well established. However, expanding this exception for uses that involve “power production and
industrial applications” invites greater scrutiny and litigation risk, especially if the projects appear to be commercial power generation.
Prioritizing efficiency over transparency also creates risks for reactor developers. Because of the long timelines for bringing nuclear reactors online, project planning regularly extends across administrations. This planning is more effective when there is greater certainty that regulations will not be significantly modified across administrations, and subjecting regulations to public and scientific scrutiny can help provide this reliability.
Modernization of the United States’ nuclear regulations has been long overdue. However, expediting licensing pathways without public participation or clear scientific bases may invite additional risks in the development of safe nuclear energy. As a result, a reform approach that invites meaningful participation from both the general public and the scientific community could provide a more sustainable and predictable path to expanding nuclear energy.
References:
ICF: Electricity Demand Growth Expectations: https://www.icf.com/insights/energy/electricity-demand-expected-to-grow
White House: Unleashing American Energy: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/unleashing-american-energy/
White House: Ordering the Reform of the NRC: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/05/29/2025-09798/ordering-the-reform-of-the-nuclear-regulatory-commission
NRC: NRC Major Reorganization Supports Efficiency, Innovation: https://www.nrc.gov/sites/default/files/cdn/doc-collection-news/2026/26-017.pdf DOE: Categorical Exclusion for Advanced Nuclear Reactors: https://www.energy.gov/nepa/categorical-exclusion-advanced-nuclear-reactors NPR: The Trump administration has secretly rewritten nuclear safety rules:
https://www.npr.org/2026/01/28/nx-s1-5677187/nuclear-safety-rules-rewritten-trump
NPR: Secretly rewritten nuclear safety rules are made public:
https://www.npr.org/2026/02/26/nx-s1-5727510/secret-rules-experimental-nuclear-reactors-now-public
Science.org: Scientists decry Trump’s rush to loosen radiation exposure standards: https://www.science.org/content/article/scientists-decry-trump-s-rush-loosen-radiation-exposure-standards
The Bulletin: Why the US must protect the independence of its nuclear regulator: https://thebulletin.org/2025/07/why-the-us-must-protect-the-independence-of-its-nuclear-regulator/
The articles published on this site reflect the views of the individual authors only. They do not represent the views of the Environmental Clinic, The University of Texas School of Law, or The University of Texas at Austin.