Democrats in House Energy hearing support nuclear power, but not Trump admin’s nuclear policies

Nuclear energy was the topic of a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing Wednesday. While the left once demonized the industry as toxic and dangerous, Democrats and Republicans on the committee agreed that the U.S. should pursue a robust nuclear energy industry. “We need firm, reliable power, versatile power, and more of it. We need power for emerging industrial output in the AI race, also for homes and businesses. A robust and growing nuclear industry also strengthens our national security,” Rep. Bob Latta, R-Ohio, chair of the Energy Subcommittee, said. 
Support for nuclear, but not Trump’s way
While Democrats expressed support for the industry, they argued that Republicans are not supporting nuclear energy enough. They also criticized the Trump administration for reducing federal staffing levels and undermining the independence of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which they argued was compromising safety. 
“Nuclear energy plays a very important role. It’s about 20% of the U.S. electricity generation. But for too long, Republicans have supported nuclear power in theory, but failed to follow through as soon as nuclear power starts to compete with fossil fuels,” Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Fla., ranking member of the Energy Subcommittee, said, according to The Wall Street Journal. 
Castor said the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — which she referred to as the “big, ugly bill” — cut tax credits to support existing nuclear power plants and rescinded billions of dollars in the Department of Energy’s Loans Program Office (LPO). The LPO, she added, lost as much as 60% of its professional staff through voluntary resignations and staffing cuts. 
A recent audit of the LPO found that one in five employees audited a potential conflict of interest or the appearance of a loss of impartiality. An inspector general’s report last year found that the Biden administration had rushed to approve loans in its final days without “ensuring a regulatory and contractually compliant and effective system to manage organizational conflicts of interest.”
Castor also claimed that intermittent energy from wind and solar, supported by batteries, was helping to put downward pressure on Americans’ electric bills. By “sabotaging” renewable energy, Castor argued, Republicans were causing high energy costs. 
The claims run counter to a recent analysis showing that blue states tend to have higher electricity costs than red states. Another recent analysis found that electricity providers in states with strong renewable energy mandates asked for rate increases more frequently than states without the mandates. 
Pallone says Trump undermining safety
Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., said that President Donald Trump and Energy Secretary Chris Wright have “attacked our nuclear regulatory regime and shattered confidence in America’s hard-won record on nuclear safety.” 
Pallone criticized Trump’s decision to fire Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner Christopher Hanson in July. Shortly after, NRC Commissioner Annie Caputo resigned from the commission. Pallone said other commissioners believe they could lose their jobs if they refuse to approve a nuclear reactor. 
Responding to questions about Hanson’s termination, a White House spokesperson told Politico in July that “all organizations are more effective when leaders are rowing in the same direction.” 
On Thursday, Trump appointed Ho Nieh to chair the NRC, E&E News reported. The Senate confirmed Nieh in December, and he joined the NRC as a Republican commissioner.
Pallone said that, while he and many other Democrats are supportive of nuclear energy, some people in his district are opposed to it. The actions of the Trump administration undermine the perception that nuclear power is safe, he argued. 
“If anything happens that gives the impression, or actually makes it so that people’s lives are at risk, or we have some kind of incident — that’s going to be the end of it,” Pallone said. 
Team Trump accuses NRC of hamstringing nuclear with regulatory chokehold
The NRC has long been criticized for onerous regulations that, rather than ensuring safety, have hamstrung America’s nuclear industry. 
In July, Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, a for-profit think tank, testified before the House Oversight Committee and made four recommendations for how the NRC could unleash nuclear energy. These included stripping out inefficiencies in the processes it uses to license reactors and reforming radiation safety standards that are 50 times stricter than what science shows is safe.  
The previous May, Trump signed an executive order directing the NRC to change these standards. The order argues that these are based on flawed models.
Judy Greenwald, president and CEO of the Nuclear Innovation Alliance (NIA), a nonprofit that advocates for policies that facilitate the development of nuclear reactors, testified at Wednesday’s hearing that bipartisan support was vital to ensuring stable policies the industry needs for long-term investments in reactor development and construction. 
“Despite recent reductions in federal support for other climate solutions because of these multiple attributes, nuclear is one of the few energy technologies that enjoys durable bipartisan support,” Greenwald said. 
She said that regulatory integrity and transparency within the NRC is important, as well as ensuring adequate staffing levels for the agency to carry out its mission. 
Dr. John Wagner, director of the Idaho National Laboratory, said that there’s been “tremendous positive collaboration” between the DOE and the NRC. He also said that he wasn’t aware of any ways in which this collaboration had undermined the expertise of the NRC. 
Durable bipartisan support
While there were partisan disagreements over how the Trump administration is advancing America’s nuclear programs, none of the lawmakers argued that nuclear energy is inherently unsafe or unnecessary to American energy. It’s a big shift from a generation ago. In the 1970s and 1980s, the public was overwhelmingly opposed to nuclear energy. 
Most famously, Stewart Brand, the founder of the legendary Whole Earth Catalog, came out in support of nuclear power in 2007. Quilette noted that “The man who led the back-to-the-land movement in the 1960s and inspired his followers to build windmills, grow organic food, and live off-grid was now advocating an energy source he had long been against.”
The NIA’s Greenwald argued that nuclear reactors take up little land, require minimal transmission lines, and have the potential to provide industrial heat. Many industries, such as steel production, require high temperatures, and currently fossil fuels are the only feasible energy source that can provide that heat. 
Currently, nuclear heat is used to generate steam, which then powers turbines to produce electricity. However, the possibility of using that heat for industrial processes is being explored. Likewise, nuclear energy is also a possible source to satisfy the increasing demands of power for data centers. 
Since atomic energy comes without carbon dioxide emissions, it’s attractive to Democrats, who are often concerned about climate change. 
“Despite recent reductions in federal support for other climate solutions, because of these multiple attributes, nuclear is one of the few energy technologies that enjoys durable bipartisan support,” Greenwald said. 
Kevin Killough is the energy reporter for Just The News. You can follow him on X for more coverage.

Read Full Article: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/democrats-house-energy-hearing-support-nuclear-critical-trump-admins-nuclear?utm_source=justthenews.com&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=external-news-aggregators