The North Carolina General Assembly’s Energy Policy Commission met for the first time in nearly two years on Tuesday to review lessons learned from past projects and discuss North Carolina’s path forward on nuclear energy.
State legislators and the state’s largest utility, Duke Energy, have taken a renewed interest in nuclear to meet rising demand, driven largely by A.I. data centers.
“Since Three Mile Island [...] our energy policy as a nation has been based on fear,” said Sen. Tim Moffit, a Republican representing Henderson, Polk and Rutherford counties. “Whether it's fear of climate change, whether it's fear that there's enough sustainable energy out there from a coal perspective or natural gas, every decision that has been made from a policy perspective has been driven by fear, not driven by courage.”
Coal and natural gas are both fossil fuels, extracted by mining and drilling. The combustion of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, which warms global average temperatures. As of 2024, Earth’s climate has warmed 2.63 degrees Fahrenheit since the Industrial Revolution (1850-1900), according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
An energy policy ‘driven by courage’
Duke Energy’s latest resource plan proposal dropped offshore wind in favor of nuclear energy as part of its long-term plan to phase out coal power plants. Duke proposed retiring the last N.C. coal plant at the Belews Creek Steam Station in 2040. However, N.C. lawmakers are open to extending that deadline even further.
“Until we establish a committed path forward and timeline for shifting that baseload energy from coal and natural gas to nuclear, I would like to hit the pause button [...] on those retirements as we navigate the next 10, 15, 20 years,” Moffit said.
Before Georgia completed Vogtle Units 3 and 4, North Carolina’s Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant was the last completed reactor in the United States. Duke Energy is working with federal regulators to clear a site near the Belews Creek Steam Station for small modular reactor construction. Small Modular Reactors, or SMRs, are reactors that generate 300 megawatts or less of power. The utility applied for an early site permit in December, which included four small modular reactor designs.
The utility also maintains federal licenses for its abandoned Lee nuclear reactors in Cherokee County, South Carolina, where it could build a larger reactor.
The federal government currently offers two incentives that make financing these multi-billion-dollar projects easier: the 48E Investment Tax Credit and the Energy Dominance Financing Program, or EDF. The $250 billion EDF program offers low-interest loans to utilities for energy projects, including coal, natural gas and nuclear energy.
The tax credit covers up to half the cost of a nuclear project, as well as costs exceeding a project’s initial estimate.
“The investment tax credit is the federal government committing to paying 30 to 50 cents of every overrun dollar,” said Julie Kozeracki, the acting chief investment officer for the U.S. Department of Energy.
If Three Mile Island is the cautionary tale about nuclear safety, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 are the financial one. The project came in late and billions over budget after over a decade of construction.
“A huge amount of Vogtle’s cost was structural cost underestimation, not cost overrun, which makes future AP-1000s much more financeable,” Kozeracki said. “At the time of construction, the AP-1000 design was not complete.”
Present-day small modular reactors are in a similar boat. The U.S. Energy Department's Reactor Pilot Program plans to start construction on at least three small reactors by July 4, with the goal of answering questions about supply chain infrastructure, workforce and even reactor design, reducing the risk of cost overrun and cost underestimation.
James Krellenstein, CEO of nuclear project management company Alva Energy, said that might not matter when comparing the cost of SMRs to larger reactors. His simulation of construction costs found that SMRs are “50 to 60% more expensive in the best case scenario” than large reactors such as the AP-1000 or ABWR. For reference, the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant uses an AP-1000.
But Kellenstein says that doesn’t change the economic advantage that larger reactors provide, even if the U.S. succeeds in building multiple SMRs.
“You never actually get over that intrinsic lack of economies of scale that you see in the larger reactors,” Kellenstein said.
