NRC Fee Reform Should Improve Performance, Not Impose Rigid Caps

The Breakthrough Institute is currently engaging extensively as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) implements its ongoing wholesale revision of its regulatory framework following Executive Order 14300. As the agency advances a series of interrelated proposed rules affecting licensing, oversight, and timelines, BTI has been actively engaging across these proceedings to support a more coherent, efficient, and durable regulatory system for advanced nuclear deployment. In that context, the FY 2026 fee rule is one component of a much larger effort to reshape how the NRC conducts and manages licensing review.

BTI’s comment on the FY 2026 fee rule focuses on the NRC’s proposed project-level fee cap for licensing reviews. The NRC presents the fee cap regime as implementing Section 5(a) of Executive Order 14300. The cap is a poor fit for NRC licensing because review costs are driven by factors such as application scope, sequencing, staffing, contract support, application quality, and the emergence of technical issues during review—not by a fixed ex ante price ceiling. The comment also raises concerns that the proposed rule is moving ahead before related NRC rulemakings on requested-activity timelines and review deadlines are complete, creating a risk that the fee framework will be locked in based on assumptions that may soon change. Further, the proposed cap regime is not well aligned with the statutory structure governing NRC fee recovery under Part 170 and Part 171, places too much weight on “applicant failure” as the sole mechanism for adjusting inaccurate cost projections, and leaves unresolved how the agency would handle unrecovered costs if reviews exceed the cap for reasons outside an applicant’s control.

NRC fee policy directly shapes the cost, predictability, and administrative integrity of the licensing process for advanced nuclear projects. A fee framework that is poorly matched to how reviews actually unfold can create new uncertainty, distort agency incentives, and weaken the connection between regulatory charges and the services performed. BTI recommends that the NRC not finalize the proposed fee-cap provision and instead pursue more durable, performance-based reforms that improve predictability by addressing the actual drivers of review cost, timing, and management.

As the NRC is simultaneously implementing the ADVANCE Act, NEIMA, and broader licensing modernization efforts, getting fee design right is important not only for applicants, but also for ensuring that nuclear regulation remains coherent, efficient, and legally durable in support of new reactor deployment.