Two experts on nuclear energy policy joined this episode of the podcast to discuss how nuclear energy policy may or may not change in the transition from the Biden to the Trump administration, and how a steep increase in energy demand because of data center and new industrial facilities may affect that policy.
Nuclear energy plays a significant role in our national energy supply picture and is seen by some as an invaluable piece of a future clean energy system. About 20% of the nation's energy supply comes from nuclear generation at more than 90 reactors and some experts believe the nation needs another 200 gigawatts of electricity from nuclear generation in the next 25 years.
On this podcast, we spoke with Jake Kincer, a program manager at Clear Path, a center-right think tank focused on accelerating efforts to reduce global energy emissions, and with Rowen Price, a policy adviser on nuclear energy at Third Way, a center-left oriented think tank focused on a range of public policy issues.
Kincer and Price discussed how nuclear energy policy may or may not change in the transition from the Biden to the Trump administration. They explained the role nuclear energy will likely play in the coming decades as energy use soars with the added demand of data centers, AI, new industrial facilities and the electrification of the transportation fleet. They also talked about the state role, the challenge of nuclear waste, and the increasing role of private companies contracting with nuclear power providers to guarantee energy for new developments.
Resources
Ed: Hello and welcome to “Our American States,” a podcast from the National Conference of State Legislatures. I’m your host, Ed Smith.
JK: My favorite stat is that since 2017 there hasn’t been a single year where Congress didn’t pass major nuclear legislation and that’s been whether Republicans or Dems or mixed control of House and Senate.
Ed: That was Jake Kincer, a program manager at Clear Path a center-right think tank focused on accelerating efforts to reduce global energy emissions. He is my guest along with Rowen Price, a policy advisor on nuclear energy at Third Way, a center-left oriented think tank focused on a range of public policy issues. They join me to discuss nuclear energy policy and how that may or may not change with the incoming Trump administration. Nuclear energy plays a significant role in our national energy supply picture and it is seen by some as an invaluable piece of a future clean energy system.About 20% of the nation’s energy supply comes from nuclear generation at more than 90 reactors. Jake and Rowen explained the role nuclear energy will likely play in the coming decades as energy use sores with the added demand of data centers, AI, new industrial facilities and the electrification of the transportation fleet. They also talked about the state role, the challenge of nuclear waste and the increasing role of private companies contracted with nuclear power providers to guarantee energy for new developments.
Here is our discussion. Rowen, Jake, welcome to the podcast.
RP: Thanks so much for having us. A pleasure to be here.
JK: Yeah this will be really great. Thanks for having us.
Ed: To start, a lot of the listeners may not be very familiar with the current state of nuclear power in this country and I wonder if we could just breakdown how much nuclear power we have now and how much that has changed in the last several decades and Rowen do you want to tackle that.
RP: Sure. Happy to.So some might be surprised to learn how much we already rely on nuclear energy in the U.S. There are about 90 reactors at 54 sites and they are providing nearly 97 gigawatts of electrical capacity so pretty substantial amount of our energy. It’s usually about 20% of our total energy production every year. And that’s remained relatively consistent over the past 20 to 30 years. There has been a little bit of a dip down to more like 18% in the last year or two, but that’s really just because of plant closures and retirements. At the same time, we are also seeing a huge resurgence in interest in nuclear both the type of existing nuclear plants that we are familiar with and a new generation of advanced nuclear. Last year, we had Vogtle unit 3 go online and then unit 4 this year.And that puts up to 2 gigawatts of additional reliable clean energy on the grid in Georgia. And it also creates a round 800 permanent jobs on the site.So there is a lot of great momentum around the economic and energy benefits of increasing nuclear energy’s portfolio in the U.S.
We are also seeing a really new bipartisan interest in legislative support for nuclear included in the Inflation Reduction Act, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and a number of more recent laws on regulatory updating, fuel security. A number of different priorities. The Department of Energy has also suggested that we are going to need at least 200 additional gigawatts of new nuclear by 2050 which is a significant increase and something that both of our organizations are really interested in trying to push for. And that is supported by some of these legislative entities that I already mentioned as well as a number of activities going on at the Department of Energy and beyond. I think the last thing I would say to kind of give a bit of the landscape and I’m sure we will return to this, but there has also been an enhanced interest from the private sector in partnering with new nuclear vendors to make sure that they can meet significant energy demand that is going to come from hyper scalers that are using data centers or machine learning in all of these very energy intensive activities in various industries.
The broad support for nuclear is really strong right now and is likely to continue being that enthusiastic moving forward.
Ed: Now I wonder about one of the things we want to talk about today is the different attitudes between current administration and our new incoming administration. And I wonder about the incoming administration’s outlook generally on energy based on the previous term that Donald Trump had and the election rhetoric and how does that differ from the Biden folks and how does nuclear factor into that and Jake why don’t you take that one.
JK: I think the incoming Trump administration, we have a reason to believe that it is going to look very similar to the first Trump administration. There is a high priority on energy security, which means cheap and reliable energy is everything. The big thing that has changed since that first Trump administration is now U.S. electricity demand is skyrocketing in a way that it really hasn’t in decades. So it is not just about trying to keep our existing generation facilities open, but its about trying to build lots of new electricity generation, transmission. So that means we need reforms to permitting, make things easier to build and nuclear is going to be a big part of that. While the two administrations might have different philosophies when it comes to energy and climate issues, I think the Trump administration the first time around was very nuclear friendly and I don’t really see a reason to think that is going to change. The first Trump administration laid the groundwork for a lot of the regulatory modernization at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission which is the organization that sort of oversees nuclear safety in this country. They created programs like the Advanced Reactive Demonstration Program in 2019 and 2020 which is helping to commercialize some of these new, advanced, safer technologies. And even making small nuclear friendly changes at other agencies in the U.S. government. So while on certain energy topics the Trump and Biden administration might have different views, nuclear has really been a very firmly bipartisan issue for the past 10 years or so. My favorite stat is that since 2017, there hasn’t been a single year where Congress didn’t pass major nuclear legislation and that’s been whether Republicans or Dems or mixed control of House and Senate. So, if that changed now, it would be the first time in seven years really.So, I think what we can expect to see continued robust support under the new administration for nuclear energy.
TM: 7:18
Ed: Gee that’s surprising about the legislative issue.I had no idea. Rowen, how do you see it. Do you see it as similar landscape there?
RP: Yeah. I think Jake really hit the nail on the head there. This bipartisan interest is going to continue regardless of who is at the head of the administration. I think it’s important to note that this election was not a climate or energy election.That was not a topic set that really drove messaging from either candidate. But whether you are looking at nuclear as a decarbonization tool or a tool for energy security and competition with regimes abroad, it is going to be essential.
Ed: So Rowen, have you seen any direct messaging from nuclear energy from the incoming Trump people or has it been more what you would interpret?
RP: I think more the latter. There has not been a ton of direct messaging about nuclear during this transition period. I think really you can point to who they have selected for the Secretary of Energy. Chris Wright has a history of support for nuclear energy along with other advanced technologies like geothermal and carbon capture. He is currently on the board of the advanced nuclear developer Oklo, which suggests that there is significant openness to nuclear energy there. We know that he will be under a lot of pressure from the White House during this term. But we do you know hope that he is really going to be driving forward policies to support nuclear energy deployment and we you know look forward to opportunities to kind of grow that broad base of nuclear support within the administration.
Ed: You know that’s interesting. He is from this part of the country here in Colorado and I think we think of him much more as an oil and gas guy and a fracking advocate, but that’s interesting that he does have that connection. Jake, how do you see that. What do you think the incoming administration’s signaling to us either with the energy appointment or other things.
JK: Yeah, and I agree with Rowen. I don’t know that there has been a lot actually said by President Trump directly about nuclear lately. I don’t know that this was a really big issue in the election, but you can read a good bit into the Chris Wright nomination. Like I said, the first Trump administration gave a robust support for nuclear. Historically Republicans have been fairly pro-nuclear because it is a key source of really reliable power. Yes, Chris Wright is on the board of Oklo as Rowen mentioned. His company invested in Fervo, which is an advanced geothermal company.I’d also like to mention that you know he’s in oil and gas. He’s a hydraulic fracturing you know a natural gas fracking guy, which is itself also an innovation success story here in the United States. That was partially supported by research and development from the Department of Energy. I don’t know Chris Wright personally, but from based on his public statements, he seems to think that clean energy innovation is good. We have many problems that we face that can be solved by energy. But based on his business background, I have there is every reason to think that he is going to be supportive of American innovation in the clean energy space.
Ed: Jake, let me stick with you for a minute. Talk a little bit about the international relationships needed to have this successful nuclear cycle and how are the incoming administration’s international policies in relationship to affect that.
JK: One of the big things that’s been in the news lately if you follow nuclear issues is that earlier this year, the United States actually passed legislation to start phasing down imports of fuel from Russia.So Russia is a really, really big supplier of uranium and nuclear fuel to the whole world really. Following this legislation to phase down those imports, Russia has also started to ban exports to the United States so there is a bit of tit for tat there. This was of course foreseen. Congress took ambitious steps to secure our nuclear fuel supply including appropriating nearly $3 billion to help build this domestic supply of nuclear fuel both for our existing fleet, but also for advanced nuclear reactors that are trying to deploy moving forward. We do make a lot of fuel in the United States, but at the end of the day nuclear fuel requires uranium. A lot of uranium comes from allies like Canada and Australia. So maintaining low barrier access to these resources is going to be very important for an American energy security and American jobs security.Also, frankly, for the ambition that Congress has for nuclear power in the United States. We are going to have to get the fuel from somewhere.
I would also like to mention since we are talking about sort of in the international market for nuclear is that there is a real opportunity here to push innovative American nuclear technology out to the rest of the world. We are looking to deploy American reactors in Poland to help them transition from coal to cleaner, firm reliable power and also get off gas from Russia and other adversary countries. Right now, frankly, Russia and China are winning the international nuclear energy market. But you know there is a real opportunity over the next decade to start competing in that space as well. And that will require deepening our collaboration with allies because you know this isn’t something where you can just send a nuclear reactor over some place and then you never think about it again right. There is all sorts of nonproliferation and trade and operations and fuel and spent nuclear fuel management that has to be done as well.
Ed: Yeah, the geopolitical relationships do seem to loom large when you explain it that way. I’m not sure everybody grasps it. Rowen, how about you. How do you see that situation?
TM: 13:06
RP: Yeah I mean I think the fuel cycle and nuclear fuel supply that’s a really good example of the opportunities for international collaboration and expansion of U.S. influence in the nuclear market.You create a much more compelling product when your purchasers know that you have a reliable fuel supply chain.That really helps make the case for our U.S. developers when they are looking to export a nuclear reactor abroad.So, I think it is really important that we are continuing to leverage the investments and significant direction given to boost our fuel supply among both U.S. domestic capabilities and also all of the existing and possible capabilities that our allies have as well.It’s not going to be something that we can do alone and so those international relationships are really going to be essential.
Ed: So, we are of course talking to state legislators, staff, government affairs people. So, let’s turn to the states for a minute. To start, how do you think the change in administration will affect nuclear policy in the states. Rowen, why don’t you start?
RP: Sure. There are a couple of examples that kind of come to mind here. For example, the increased interest in these hyperscale high energy demand entities, it’s going to necessitate some sort of continued engagement between the administration and the private sector. So if the new administration is going to pursue any sort of initiative on energy deployment to meet AI or data needs, that is likely going to direct a lot of effort in or investment into areas that are poised to benefit from entrance from those types of businesses. I think another example that would be significant at the state level would be any sort of federal progress on breaking our gridlock on the nuclear waste or spent nuclear fuel issue. There are a number of states that still have moratoria on new nuclear deployments in their state because of a lack of a comprehensive federal strategy on what’s called the backend of the fuel cycle. So the nuclear waste issue itself. So if there is any federal progress made on that front, that could really open the door to more states being willing to pursue nuclear and therefore take this the initial legislative or executive steps needed to create an environment that is more conducive to nuclear energy deployment.
One other quick thought would be there is an existing program that has been authorized but not yet funded called Fission for the Future and that could potentially inject, you know, some sort of incentives for states and could offer some opportunities for states to really respond and take action there.
Ed: Rowen, why don’t you explain to our listeners what kind of funding states get around the nuclear power and nuclear energy. Is there a stream of funding from the federal government?
RP: I think the most important stream of funding it’s a little bit more indirect, but we are really talking about the tax credits like the ones that were included in the Inflation Reduction Act. But there are a variety of different credits available, but they all are aiming to incentivize the deployment of different clean energy technologies. Therefore, you know looking ahead if the federal incentives for nuclear energy deployment are impacted by this incoming administration, that could mean that the state may need to pick up a little bit of that slack in finding their own incentives for nuclear deployment in their jurisdictions.
Ed: And Jake, how do you see the situation both in terms of policy toward the states and also this funding issue.
JK: Yeah, I think Rowen is right here. I mean I think it’s clear to everybody that we’re entering a budget era where there isn’t going to be a lot of appetite for huge new federal spending. Plus the tax credit issue obviously there is a number of tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act that do benefit nuclear specifically. There is going to be a huge tax bill that happens probably in the next year or two. I think everybody is aware of that at the federal level. What that will look like after all of the wheeling and dealing, I’m not going to pretend to have any idea. But as I said, you know, I think everybody knows that there is not going to be a lot like a huge new spending at the federal level. So, I do think that states are if they are really, really interested in bringing nuclear to their state, are going to have to step up and provide some policy support. And I think you’ve really kind of already seen that start to happen so. We’ve seen states like Texas, Virginia and Tennessee, Wyoming. There are probably others that I’m forgetting because frankly there is just a lot of interest at the state level to bring nuclear and getting really serious about how they can make that happen. And it makes sense if you think about it. It’s a national security issue to have energy security for sure. But grid reliability and energy access and how that sort of enables job creation and economic growth is really ultimately a local and regional concern. So if I’m the governor of Texas and I want to bring more manufacturing, more construction, more good paying jobs to my state, I need to make sure that I have power to supply those industries. And a really good example of this with nuclear is Georgia. A lot was made of the price and delays in the Vogtle 3 and 4 plants that Rowen mentioned earlier and I’m not going to say that those didn’t happen by any means, but I think you’ve really seen Georgia start to reap the rewards of that. It is a state where the second most data centers are being built. Lots of new clean manufacturing coming to the state.Because frankly, it’s credible when they go to companies and say yeah, we will have a lot of reliable clean power for you to power your new automobile factory or whatever it is that they might be doing. It’s a competition right and if you want to be the state that has a lot of clean, reliable power that companies are interested in, you are going to need to step up and make that happen.
Ed: Thanks, Jake. We will be right back after this short break.
TM: 19:40
I’m back with Rowen Price and Jake Kincer.Let me follow up on the need for power for data centers and other new industrial facilities. I did a podcast a few weeks ago about data centers and while this won’t surprise the two of you, I didn’t realize that for a very long time our energy consumption has been relatively flat. But now it is going up rather quickly. So Jake, how does that affect the nuclear question. Does a state like Virginia where all of these data center are springing up look at what happened in Georgia and see that is something to emulate?
JK: Yeah. Absolutely.And I know I said it earlier in this podcast, but I’d like to reiterate that how big of a shift that there is wherefor 20+ years we’ve gone from flat to band. Where if you are a utility, you really just have to keep what you have open.Maybe you replace one thing every couple of years to now we actually have to buildout lots of new power and that’s just an entire frame shift for a lot of these companies. So, I’d just like to double tap on that cause I think it is a really important thing for especially state legislators to understand.To the data center question, this has been a really hot topic in nuclear this year and for good reason. It really is a game changer. So, I think you’ve seen last month a number of these larger tech companies so Google, Amazon starting to invest in nuclear companies.There is the Google Kairos deal steel as well as the Amazon X energy deal which are both nuclear companies looking to deploy around the 2030 time period. But these tech companies, they need reliable power to keep growing and they want it to be clean. Frankly put, they are sitting on mountains of cash and they are facing wait times to connect to the grid that are several years optimistically. I’ve seen up to seven years and it's frankly growing really quickly to. So in a lot of ways, they are really better positioned to take on this early risk to deploy advanced nuclear models that maybe we haven’t built yet before than say like a regulated utility whose primary goal is really just keeping that power bills as low as possible.
One thing I would like to point out because I know we always talks about data centers, but it’s not just data centers.Industrials are really exploring this, too. o Dow Chemical, massive company, international company, is supporting the X energy reactor that is being built in Texas because they need clean heat for their chemicals production. Other companies in the steel and oil industries are exploring how to use nuclear to meet their demands too. There’s frankly just a real competitive advantage in this high demand supply constrained environment. If you are the only company in your sector who is able to get clean, firm power or heat and I think some companies are looking ahead and seeing like okay what does this look like if I’m the only data center company that can consistently power my new builds. Or if I’m the only chemical company who can consistently get clean heat that I need for my industry.And I think we will see a lot more private interest because of that.
Ed: Yeah, that’s a great point. I think what some people have called the reindustrialization of America over the last several years. I’m not sure people realize how many factories and whatnot other facilities are opened, and the electrification of the transportation fleet as well. So Rowen, how do you see that? How do you see that rise at not just data centers, but also these other high demand facilities. How do you see that affecting the nuclear picture?
RP: I think what it really comes down to is we have these new energy users in the clean energy market who are looking for something that is reliable 24/7 and that’s really only nuclear and so that is really driving a lot of this interest. It’s not just that nuclear sounds exciting or splashy. It is the news all the time. I mean they are looking at nuclear because it is a reliable baseload energy source. I think the example you gave earlier of Virginia and whether Virginia is you know super interested in this now ah actually the Amazon announcement referred to did actually include some cooperation in the state of Virginia to expand energy deployment as well. I think this is a really new formulation of different players in this space as well.The way that data centers and industrial users are going to be targeting energy is very different than a utility company which has been the driving model for energy and that’s not to say that utilities are not going to continue to play a role in investments in nuclear.I think we are right now seeing all sorts of different types of agreements for power purchase and that’s probably going to continue and I think we’re going to see a much more diverse set of stakeholders involved in the nuclear energy space moving forward because of this injection of energy demand.
Ed: Rowen, let me stick with you for a second. Talking about those state players and I’m thinking of state government players, legislators, governors you know executive officials that kind of thing, what kind of role do they play when it comes to this, innovative ideas and kickstarting these things, whether its small modular reactors, microreactors. How does the state get involved with that both the executive and legislative level.
RP: The state will be very important for creating an environment that is conducive to these nuclear deployments. The state level executives and legislators are going to be responsible for developing and implementing state energy strategy and so that is going to be a really important state level trigger to really derisk nuclear deployment in their regions and also to attract the private stakeholders that may be interested in either citing new business in that state or in searching for energy in that state.
I also think when it comes to the executive, it’s going to be important that they make they continue lobbying the federal government to maintain access to the capital and the tax credits that we have and really maintain that federal market for nuclear because at the end of the day we are thinking about it as a federal interest and a federal problem, but when it comes to actually getting nuclear reactors built and deployed, the states are going to really, really important. It’s going to be important to make sure that the state has the capabilities to support that. I think another kind of interesting way that state leadership can play an important role is through connecting with for the states that have chambers of commerce, connecting those with the potential new businesses that those chambers play a role in attracting to the state. That is going to be important to not just bring new business to the state, but also recognize that those businesses are coming with their own energy demands especially if we are talking about large industrial projects or manufacturing.And so state leaders can really effectively engage in coordinating with chambers of commerce, these businesses and kind of create a buyer’s club for nuclear energy in the area and that’s a really helpful way in which states can really get involved in attracting businesses that are going to be conducive to nuclear energy deployment.
Ed: So Jake, same for you. How do you see that state role?
TM: 28:41
JK: Yeah. I mean I think Rowen covered a lot of ground here so I don’t have too much to add to what she said. I think obviously nuclear licensing and safety is regulated at the federal level through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. That’s not going to change. But what states can do is figure out how to make sure that they aren’t creating any more barriers to bringing nuclear to their state. So a number of states still have nuclear bands or restrictions and there are a few things states can do from a policy perspective to start laying the groundwork for nuclear reactors in their state even if they don’t necessarily need to build one today. So there is some processes around site characterization. Getting early site permits. That kind of thing that requires a relatively small amount of funding but can be a really strong signal especially if you are trying to coordinate as Rowen said with industrial customers that want to come into the state.One good example of the state that I think has really gotten quite aggressive on this is Texas. So Governor Abbott you know came out last year and said I want Texas to lead not just the country, but the world in advanced nuclear.Put somebody in charge of a working group to bring recommendations back before the next Texas legislative session.The Texas Public Utility working group on this just released their plan earlier this week. You know maybe not all of these recommendations are going to be the same fore every state by any means, but I do think at the end of the day it’s going to require some policy support if you want your state to win this race and making sure that you don’t have excess barriers.
Ed: Well it is interesting you mentioned the nuclear waste issue. I did a magazine story some years ago about that. It sounds like I could probably republish that story right now since I don’t think hardly anything has changed in terms of how that material is handled.As we wrap up, I wanted to ask both of you about the ADVANCE Act signed by President Biden last summer or actually just this past summer and I wonder if you could both take a shot of summarizing that act and explaining how you think it will affect nuclear energy in the U.S. and how the incoming administration might potentially change that momentum or allow it to continue with what’s going. Rowen, why don’t you go first.
RP: We could spend an hour talking about the ADVANCE Act alone so I’ll try to keep it very topline. There are a bunch of different key components to this legislation that are really important in making sure that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can meet the demand of a new set of nuclear reactor developers. Some of the key components I’ll call out. There are certainly more and you know we can get into any of this as much or as little as you want. But some key components are fee reductions so that would remove a bit of the financial barrier for advanced reactor vendors to engage with the NRC which is really important especially when we are in this space with a lot of first of a kind technologies. A new entrance to the world of NRC engagement. So, it’s really important to make sure that it is not prohibitable expensive to actually engage with the regulator. There are also a number of updates and directions for expediting review process for environmental purposes when there haven’t been really significant design changes to a reactor that’s at an existing nuclear site or directly adjacent. This won’t apply to everything, but it is intended to reduce redundancy in the regulatory and licensing process. And then also another provision that might be relevant for listeners is one about brown field sites which are sites that are already have been somewhat limited in terms of reuse due to contaminants or previous energy use. The ADVANCE Act would direct NRC to develop a pathway for quicker licensing of new nuclear facilities at brown field or retired fossil fuel sites. And that just opens up the possibilities for streamlined citing processes for nuclear and also provides an opportunity for some of the energy related experience in those communities to really transfer forward. So there is really a lot to unpack there. I think when it comes to how it affects nuclear energy hopefully it helps speed licensing and make our regulatory processes more efficient.When we are talking about the urgent need for nuclear energy deployment and yet it is taking too long to get some of these essential pieces done, it is really important that we work on highlighting the areas of efficiency and really leaning into those.
In terms of what is coming forward, the incoming administration, I don’t expect much change. We anticipate Congress will have strong interest in ensuring that the NRC implements the provisions of the ADVANCE Act effectively. We expect to see some pretty rigorous oversight of the NRC as it takes on all of these different tasks that have been outlined for it.It will likely continue being the focus of NRC implementation over the next several years.
Ed: Well to be fair, we probably could have done an hour podcast on every one of these questions without even breaking a sweat I suspect with the two of you. Jake, let me ask, you to get the last word here, and give us your take on the ADVANCE Act.
JK: Yeah absolutely. So Rowen covered a lot of ground and frankly she is right. There is a lot more even to cover. This was really a big bill. I would like to point out two things in addition. One is that the ADVANCE Act obviously passed this year.It received a lot like overwhelmingly bipartisan support. I think you know amongst both Democrats and Republicans this was a popular Bill. I think there might be less than 15 people in the entire Congress that voted against it. So, I really think this goes to show the support amongst our leadership for nuclear energy in this country. The other thing is this is a really important bill. This is actually building on a lot of progress we’ve been making since 2018, 2019, etc. so under the Trump administration, we passed the Nuclear Innovation and Modernization Act, which is colloquially known as NIMA, which we really started this effort to modernize our Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the modern era. So Rowen is absolutely right. Moving forward it’s all going to be about trying to execute on Congress’ mandate through this bill. The new administration will be in charge of nominating at least one new commissioner to the NRC commission, so you will probably see that be you know I know we are all talking about the Trump administration cabinet picks right now.But these other picks are going to have really big impacts on how this is executed and really what the future of nuclear looks like in this country. I’m very optimistic about what the ADVANCE Act can do not only for advanced nuclear, as Rowen said, but there are also fixes through things like they are subsequent license renewals right. That’s keeping our existing fleet open. ADVANCE nuclear is very exciting. I’m very excited about it, but we have a lot of really, really world class operations at nuclear reactors that already exist today that are really important to keep open if we want to meet our reliable energy and emissions goals.
TM: 36:23
Ed: Well, I have to say as a former journalist, I’m always amazed when something passes with massive bipartisan support and that there’s nothing ever written about it. I literally could hardly find a news story about the ADVANCE Act, and I guess that’s because there wasn’t a bunch of argument about it. I know that I learned a little more today and I hope that our listeners did as well and we will include some resources where people can educate themselves a little bit more on this. I want to thank you both. This is a really great discussion. Take care.
RP: Thanks so much.
JK: Great. Thanks Ed.
Ed: I’ve talking with Rowen Price and Jake Kincer about nuclear energy policy and how that might develop in the new presidential administration. Thanks for listening.
You can check out all the podcasts from the National Conference of State Legislatures by searching for NCSL podcasts wherever you get your podcasts. This podcast “Our American States” dives into some of the most challenging public policy issues facing legislators. On “Across the Aisle” host Kelley Griffin tells stories of bipartisanship. Also check out our special series “Building Democracy” on the history of legislatures.