Nuclear Renaissance: Can Trump-Era Policies Ignite a New Era in U.S. Energy?

The New York Times recently highlighted a potential turning point in U.S. energy policy: reports that the Trump administration considered issuing executive orders to fast-track nuclear plant construction by 2025. While the administration’s tenure ended in 2021, its legacy lives on in regulatory shifts, loan guarantees, and a framework for advanced nuclear technologies. For investors, this raises critical questions: Is nuclear energy poised for a renaissance? What are the risks and opportunities in this sector?

Policy Foundations: Beyond the Headlines

The Trump administration’s 2021 Department of Energy (DOE) directive under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act was a pivotal move. It sought to prevent the premature closure of existing nuclear plants by compensating them for their zero-emission attributes. The policy also extended the deadline for new nuclear project applications to October 2025, explicitly encouraging advanced reactor technologies like small modular reactors (SMRs).

The Vogtle plant in Georgia, funded partly by $12 billion in federal loan guarantees finalized under Trump, underscores this shift. Units 3 and 4, using Westinghouse’s AP1000 design, began commercial operation in July 2023 and April 2024, respectively. While delayed, their completion marks a milestone for nuclear’s return to growth.

Market Potential: SMRs and the Road to 2035

The real game-changer lies in small modular reactors (SMRs). The Trump-era Executive Order 13972 prioritized SMRs for defense, space exploration, and domestic energy. The DOE’s National Reactor Innovation Center (NRIC) and HALEU Availability Program are now advancing technologies like NuScale’s 60-MW SMR and Oklo’s “fast fission” reactors.

The $16 million DOE grant in 2023 to develop HALEU transportation infrastructure further signals progress. By 2035, the U.S. aims to deploy SMRs for grid support, industrial processes, and even space missions—a vision that could unlock $100 billion in investment over the next decade.

Risks and Hurdles: Regulatory and Economic Challenges

Yet, obstacles remain. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)’s politicization under Trump—such as requiring OMB review of safety rules—has raised red flags. Delays at the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), plagued by leadership turmoil, exemplify institutional instability. Meanwhile, cost overruns at Vogtle (totaling $27 billion) and the 2023 cancellation of NuScale’s Carbon Free Power Project highlight execution risks.

Investment Opportunities: Where to Look

1. Utilities with Nuclear Assets: Companies like Southern Company (SO), which owns 45.7% of Vogtle, benefit directly from completed projects.
2. Advanced Reactor Developers: NuScale Power and Oklo are pioneers in SMRs, though their commercial viability remains unproven.
3. Fuel and Supply Chain: Cameco (CCJ) and Uranium Energy Corp (UEC) could gain if demand for HALEU and conventional uranium rises.
4. Regulatory Plays: Firms like Brookfield Asset Management (BAM), which owns Westinghouse, stand to profit from SMR deployments.

Conclusion: A Nuanced Outlook

The Trump-era policies have laid a framework for nuclear’s revival, but success hinges on execution. Key data points:
- Vogtle’s completion proves large-scale projects are possible, albeit costly.
- SMRs could reduce construction timelines and risks, with the NRIC and HALEU programs supporting innovation.
- However, regulatory uncertainty, cost overruns, and competition from renewables (e.g., solar and wind’s declining costs) pose headwinds.

For investors, a sector-agnostic, diversified approach makes sense:
- Short-term: Focus on utilities like Southern Company and uranium suppliers like Cameco.
- Long-term: Track SMR developers and supply chain players as technologies mature.

While nuclear’s renaissance may not be a slam dunk, the confluence of policy support, decarbonization goals, and geopolitical energy demands makes it a compelling niche for strategic investors.

The verdict? Nuclear energy’s comeback is neither guaranteed nor immediate—but its potential to reshape the energy landscape demands serious consideration.