America's Nuclear Comeback Stumbles Over North Carolina Legislation

A cautionary tale about state-level policy risks to U.S. nuclear expansion

Tracking state-level energy policy in the U.S. is notoriously difficult, given the number and complexity of state legislative and regulatory processes. Occasionally, however, legislation emerges that demands national attention.

This past week, the North Carolina State Senate passed S.B. 261, seeking to overturn a critical component of the state's energy framework by repealing its interim electricity decarbonization standard. The bill also grants Duke Energy a major concession, allowing it to increase electricity rates charged to consumers to secure profits before new baseload power plants become operational.

A central justification for the bill offered by its lead sponsor is that it will support nuclear power development. As Duke Energy’s former North Carolina president and current Senate Majority Leader Paul Newton stated at the legislative hearing, “[Nuclear] is what we need more of on our grid… The model will pick natural gas and nuclear resources every time when allowed to do so, because they have the least cost.”

However, the available evidence suggests the opposite. Analysis by North Carolina's consumer advocacy agency, the Public Staff, concluded the bill would slash anticipated nuclear capacity additions by 50% by 2035, in favor of more natural gas power plants (see Figure 1 below).

Why does this matter beyond North Carolina? Because among all U.S. regions, the Carolinas are uniquely positioned to support a national revival of nuclear power after decades of stagnation, owing to a more nuclear-favorable regulatory environment. However, despite its promise, new nuclear remains expensive in the U.S., in significant part due to an eroded supply chain, depleted workforce, and lost construction expertise. Georgia’s recent completion of two AP1000 reactors at Vogtle was an important step toward rebuilding these capabilities, albeit at a high cost to ratepayers. But without consistent state and federal support, nuclear development is likely to stall.

North Carolina’s interim decarbonization standard, established by bipartisan compromise under H.B. 951 in 2021, required a 70% reduction in electricity sector CO₂ emissions by the early 2030s. To meet this target, Duke Energy proposed, and the North Carolina Utilities Commission approved, plans for 600 MW of new nuclear capacity by 2034. This made North Carolina perhaps the only state besides Georgia with a utility commission-approved resource plan explicitly including new nuclear.

Instead of reinforcing this progress, S.B. 261 undermines the very policy enabling medium-term nuclear growth. As nuclear expert Jim Hopf noted, this is “another example of how new nuclear construction depends on decarbonization policies. Things like repealing the IRA's clean power supports, and this example of a state delaying decarb targets, make it hard to economically justify new nuclear construction.” Indeed, as I recently testified to the U.S. House Energy & Commerce Energy Subcommittee, preserving the Inflation Reduction Act’s technology-neutral tax credits and the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office is essential to support nuclear growth (my written testimony is here, and the relevant video segment is here at 1:26:23).

Does this mean no new nuclear reactors will ever be built again in the Carolinas? Not necessarily. The bill leaves intact the state’s standard requiring a carbon-neutral electric power sector by 2050, which may still drive nuclear development in the 2040s. But repealing the interim standard significantly weakens the rationale for nuclear deployment in the 2030s.

Perhaps even more troubling is the opaque and rushed manner in which S.B. 261 was crafted. The original 2021 law resulted from a multi-year process involving broad stakeholder engagement, independent analysis, and public debate, culminating in a major bipartisan compromise. Two extensive resource planning proceedings followed, involving thousands of pages of comments and testimony, hundreds of hours of hearings, and months of work by the utility commission.

In contrast, S.B. 261 was introduced and passed by the NC Senate within 72 hours, without stakeholder input, bipartisan engagement, or publicly accessible analysis. Remarkably, Senate leadership privately commissioned modeling from the Public Staff to justify their position, yet this taxpayer-funded analysis remains hidden from public scrutiny.

Such hasty policymaking undermines business confidence and investment stability – precisely the conditions required to attract private capital to long-lead, capital-intensive nuclear projects. If state leaders can overturn key policies without transparency or deliberation, investors will naturally question the state’s regulatory reliability.

The state’s Democratic governor is expected to veto the bill, and it remains to be seen whether the GOP-controlled legislature will secure enough votes to override it. Regardless of the outcome, this episode is a reminder of how fragile America's nuclear future remains and highlights a fundamental contradiction among nuclear advocates on the political right. Restarting America's nuclear industry hinges on clear and consistent policy support, for which the most compelling rationale is precisely the one S.B. 261 erodes: decarbonization. Policymakers nationwide should heed this cautionary tale – without stable and ambitious climate policies, America's nuclear renaissance remains precarious at best.