Durability where it counts

Durability. It's a major objective of nuclear plant maintenance, and it's also the new watchword in Washington when it comes to nuclear policy.

In these pages are descriptions of Energy Northwest undertaking a massive uprate project at Columbia, the Tennessee Valley Authority investing in new equipment to maintain water intake systems at Browns Ferry, and American Electric Power's successful efforts at D.C. Cook to improve supply chain efficiency and vendor relationships.

These utilities can invest in maintenance and uprates because they trust in the durability of their plants and the need for stable baseload power. Durability and stability are needed in nuclear policy as well-not just on the grid.

Over the past 18 months, the Trump administration has "flooded the zone" on nuclear energy policy. Part 53. The DOE Reactor Pilot Program. Domestic enrichment and HALEU. Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses. Sweeping changes at both the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission intended to speed regulatory approvals.

There is no question that the jolt has produced results. This summer, four advanced reactor projects achieved criticality under DOE authorization-an extraordinary acceleration in a field where timelines have traditionally been measured in decades.

But Washington, D.C., changes. A House or Senate flip in November would immediately alter the legislative and investigative environment. Already, the Supreme Court has essentially granted the president authority to fire NRC commissioners. A future administration could bring dramatic changes.

That makes the question of durability in nuclear policy increasingly important.

Nuclear projects require investment horizons measured in decades. Companies, utilities, states, and investors all need reasonable confidence that the basic rules of the road will survive the next election.

The key question is this: How do we preserve the good that has come from this period of rapid change? How do we correct excesses where they occur without reversing progress? Most importantly, how do we maintain the bipartisan coalition that has made nuclear energy one of the few major issues on which Republicans and Democrats still routinely find common ground?

Some of this work is very practical. Companies participating in the Reactor Pilot Program need a clear bridge from DOE authorization to NRC regulation if their technologies are to move into the commercial marketplace. States pursuing Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses need confidence that Congress will provide the statutory authorities and appropriations necessary for those partnerships to succeed. And reforms at the NRC need to become institutional improvements, not simply policies associated with one administration.

Durability does not mean freezing every policy decision in place. Some experiments will work; others won't. Course corrections are inevitable and healthy, but what we cannot do is start over every two or four years. The political pendulum will always swing. Our job is to make sure it doesn't become a wrecking ball.