Legislation looks to address nuclear construction materials, tax credit rules

Lawmakers in Congress have introduced a pair of bills this month targeting different aspects of nuclear construction, with one proposal focusing on construction material and the other on tax credits.

Build Nuclear with Local Materials Act: On Thursday, lawmakers introduced the Build Nuclear with Local Materials Act, which would require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to allow the use of commercial-grade concrete and steel in non-safety-related structures at nuclear power plants and areas not directly exposed to radioactive material. The bill also would allow the NRC to require nuclear-grade materials on these non-safety-related structures if it is determined that stricter standards are necessary to address a specific safety risk or ensure public health and safety. The bill has bipartisan and bicameral support, as the legislation was filed at both the U.S. House and Senate.

Lawmakers said advancements in reactor designs have made nuclear-grade concrete and steel unnecessary for certain aspects of nuclear facilities construction, such as in non-safety-related components. Shifting away from nuclear-grade construction materials to commercial-grade materials where feasible and appropriate would reduce costs and speed up deployment.

Nuclear-grade concrete costs an estimated $527 per cubic meter, higher than the estimated $352 per cubic meter for commercial-grade concrete, according to the announcement of the bill. Nuclear-grade steel, meanwhile, costs an estimated 120 percent more than non-nuclear-grade steel. Concrete, foundation, and superstructure pours using nuclear-grade cement tend to take longer as well. This construction also requires crews that are specialized in working with nuclear-grade construction materials.

"As nuclear technology evolves, our regulations should evolve with it," said sponsor Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R., Wyo.)."Requiring nuclear-grade materials in parts of a plant that have nothing to do with safety drives up costs and locks out local construction crews who are more than capable of doing the job."

The bill is cosponsored by Sen. Mark Kelly (D., Ariz.). Its companion legislation in the House is sponsored by Rep. Byron Donalds (R., Fla.) and cosponsored by Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D., Mass.).

"Energy security is national and economic security for the United States. As our energy demands continue to grow, it is essential that nuclear energy is a viable source of base load power," said Donalds. "We must take a hard look at outdated and burdensome regulations and make practical, commonsense reforms."

The bill is scheduled for a hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on May 20.

Nuclear Rate Stabilization Act: Rep. Pat Harrigan (R., N.C.) and cosponsor Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D., Calif.) introduced the Nuclear Rate Stabilization Act on April 23, another bipartisan effort to address nuclear construction costs-in this case, tax credit rules the lawmakers said are broken.

"We have the most powerful energy source on earth, zero emissions, reliable baseload power that can run for decades, and we are letting outdated accounting rules strangle it before it gets off the ground," said Harrigan in a statement. "The Nuclear Rate Stabilization Act makes sure the tax credits Congress already passed actually reach the people they were meant to help, lowers costs for consumers, and gets more reactors built. Nuclear is the future of American energy dominance and it is past time our tax code reflected that."

Utilities constructing nuclear reactors can receive clean energy investment tax credits of roughly 30-50 percent of construction costs. However, lawmakers argue that rules require those credits be stretched out over the 40-year lifespan of a reactor, also stretching out the potential rate relief associated with these credits. Qualified project expenditure credits, meanwhile, cannot be transferred to third parties. Lawmakers argue this cuts off access to capital for new reactor projects.

The proposed legislation would modify investment credit rules associated with nuclear facilities projects, giving nuclear energy projects the same opt-out option from these rules that battery storage projects have and allowing the transfer of qualified project expenditure credits to third parties-a move supporters argue would spur new nuclear construction.

"Our bipartisan bill would update the tax code to ensure that safe and secure nuclear projects can properly utilize clean energy investment tax credits to build reactors in a timely manner, cutting greenhouse gas emissions for our environment and saving consumers money on their electricity bills," said Panetta. "I'm always glad to work across the aisle when it comes to reducing energy costs and strengthening America's energy independence."