After decades defined by safety dominance, the NRC may be recalibrating toward a renewed balance between oversight and expansion.

The history of nuclear energy in the United States illustrates the difficulties of balancing two goals: expanding nuclear energy and regulating it. Today, the revival of nuclear energy in the United States moves beyond reactor design, fuel-cycle safety, and disposal technology. It is being tested in the most crucial area—with its regulator, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which was established as an independent agency in 1974 to oversee the civilian nuclear energy industry in the United States. A significant increase in electricity demand is renewing pressure to commission new reactors. As a result, the NRC faces realignment of its objectives with the imperatives of new energy demand and policies. This tension remains as complex a topic today as it was some 50 years ago. 

Origins of the NRC 

A few years after the 1942 Chicago Pile-1, the first self-sustaining nuclear chain reactor in a man-made reactor, an experimental breeder reactor at a site in Idaho, generated the first electricity from nuclear energy in 1951. The United States developed its first nuclear reactor, a pressurized water reactor (PWR), under Admiral Hyman Rickover as prototype Mark 1, which was deployed to power the US submarine USS Nautilus in 1954. 

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 provided the civilian nuclear energy program full access to nuclear technology and established the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) with a dual mandate of developing nuclear energy and regulating it. By the end of 1957, the Commission had seven experimental reactors in operation.

Most nuclear reactors in the United States were built during the 1960s and 1970s, with more than 100 reactor orders planned in the 1970s. At its peak, the US nuclear industry, while commercializing two main types of reactors, pressurized water reactors (PWRs) and boiling water reactors (BWRs), nonetheless pursued other reactor designs such as Gas Cooled Reactors, Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors, and Experimental Breeder Reactors. While not pursuing the level of standardization that France or Canada practiced, US reactors were completed on time and within budget. 

A key piece of legislation, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, changed the framework for nuclear energy development and regulation. The Act abolished the Atomic Energy Commission and established the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) in 1975, which, in 1977, became the Department of Energy (DOE). The Act also established the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as an independent agency in 1974 to oversee all aspects of nuclear energy, including reactor designs, fuel cycles, nuclear materials, and waste.

Separation of Development and Regulation 

However, momentum faded quickly after the incident at Three Mile Island in 1979, leading to widespread cancellations, new regulations, construction delays, and rising costs. Following the incident, the newly established agency cultivated its culture and values and further developed analytical models for safety standards. 

The NRC focused on nuclear safety as its primary duty, keeping it separate from—and mostly at odds with—new reactor development. The 1970s saw the largest number of nuclear starts and subsequently, the largest number of cancellations. The NRC, with its team of qualified scientists and technicians, became known as the gold standard for safety. Over time, however, it developed such a rigorous analytical approach that decision-making was hampered, turning the approval process for new reactors into an expensive and complicated procedure with debatable economic benefits.  

Advanced Nuclear Reactors Within Legacy Frameworks 

Today’s challenge is that some of those longstanding standards might not even be relevant to certain advanced reactor designs. Since 2017, multiple legislative bills have acknowledged the safety features of advanced and small-scale reactors. Prompted by rising energy demands and renewed interest in nuclear, in December 2021, the NRC announced Rule 53 to create a clear licensing process for advanced and smaller reactors. The rule is set to be finalized by 2027. 

Until then, advanced reactors, small modular reactors (SMRs), and microreactors will follow Rules 50 and 52, frameworks developed primarily for large PWRs and BWRs. The NRC is also reviewing reactor design prototypes that might be more readily facilitated by pushing their oversight to the Department of Energy or the Department of Defense (DOD). 

Institutionally, the NRC’s legacy implies unlimited responsibility for nuclear safety, but no incentive to consider its development for the public good. Perhaps the current huge increase in electricity demand may change this and realign the twin objectives of reactor development and its regulation.

The Trump Administration’s Executive Orders to Realign the NRC’s Mission 

In an effort to jump-start new nuclear energy development, the Trump administration has issued a series of Executive Orders and picked up a handful of reactor developers, with a deadline to achieve “criticality,” an important milestone in reactor development. While the milestone of “criticality” does not imply the scale needed to commercialize the new reactors, the optics of urgency are not lost on the NRC. 

The Executive Orders seek to leverage DOE and DOD to accelerate the deployment of advanced nuclear reactors and the development of the nuclear supply chain. DOE has invoked the Defense Production Act under Executive Order 14302,“Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base.” This renewed reliance on defense authorities points to the origins of US nuclear energy. The first US submarine powered by nuclear energy, the USS Nautilus, “shattered the diesel-era assumptions, transited the North Pole in 1958, and served until 1980.” 

 In January 2025, the NRC voted to update its mission statement to align with the policies of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954—regulating nuclear energy “for the benefit of society,” in a manner that is efficient, does not “unnecessarily limit” the deployment, and considers the benefits of nuclear energy technology to society. This change in the NRC mission statement implies more than the symbolic legacy of its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission. It implies an effort to update the culture and values that have existed within the agency since its inception, some 50 years ago, to accommodate today’s energy reality. 

About the Author: Rashmi Singh 

Rashmi Singh is chief lending officer at a San Francisco commercial bank, with experience in financing tech firms and real estate nationwide. She holds an MIT certificate in Clean Energy Systems and a master’s in Energy Law and Environmental Policies from Texas A&M University.

The post Mission Possible: The NRC’s Shift Is More Than Symbolic appeared first on The National Interest.