Bill Overview
Title: Nuclear Assistance for America’s Small Businesses Act
Description: This bill provides assistance to eligible small businesses that seek to engage in the research, development, and deployment of advanced nuclear reactors. Upon the request of small businesses, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must delay collecting a certain portion of application fees for construction permits, operating licenses, or combined licenses for advanced nuclear reactors.
Sponsors: Rep. Donalds, Byron [R-FL-19]
Target Audience
Population: Small business entities in the nuclear technology sector
Estimated Size: 8000
- The bill targets small businesses involved in the nuclear sector, particularly those focusing on advanced nuclear reactor technologies.
- The global impact includes businesses and industries involved in nuclear technology that may span across multiple countries, but the direct impact is on U.S. small businesses.
- Eligible small businesses will see financial support through deferred application fees, aiding their participation in nuclear advancements.
- The broader nuclear industry may be indirectly impacted through increased innovation and development due to reduced financial barriers for smaller enterprises.
Reasoning
- Since the policy is aimed at small businesses engaged in advanced nuclear reactor development, it is vital to include perspectives from different geographical and economic spectrums within the US.
- The budget constraints necessitate focusing on businesses most likely to benefit from deferred application fees and those in a position to actively pursue nuclear projects.
- The population covers business owners, employees, and individuals linked indirectly through economic and social networks.
- We include a mix of genders and ages to reflect real-world diversity and capture various impacts, economic growth, and innovation facilitated by advanced nuclear technology.
Simulated Interviews
CEO of a nuclear tech startup (Palo Alto, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've been worried about the regulatory costs.
- This policy could really accelerate our projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Research scientist (Las Vegas, NV)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any assistance helps small firms like ours manage costs.
- This could improve our competitive edge on a global level.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Head of Operations at a nuclear startup (Boston, MA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy looks appealing as we struggle with licensing fees.
- This could stabilize our finances enabling more focus on R&D.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired nuclear engineer now consultant (Oak Ridge, TN)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I'm retired, I see potential for innovation through this policy.
- I expect to see the effects in new technological advancements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Graduate student in nuclear engineering (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems beneficial for my career prospects if my host company grows.
- I'd love to see more small companies succeed in nuclear tech.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Environmental activist (New York, NY)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm skeptical of policies promoting nuclear technologies.
- Such moves could divert attention from renewable energy development.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Technical manager at an engineering firm (Albuquerque, NM)
Age: 34 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Assistance to reduce fees lowers a significant barrier for us.
- Skeptical about the long-term governmental support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Owner of a small advanced reactor company (Cleveland, OH)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy helps delay the financial burden and helps us focus on scaling.
- Potential to improve my company's market position.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Student studying environmental policy (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy shifts focus away from renewables, which is concerning.
- Although, nuclear can complement renewables with proper integration.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Senior engineer in an energy company (Houston, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The financial encouragement can propel technological evolution in the nuclear field.
- Such support boosts industry morale and project viability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $120000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $160000000)
Year 2: $120000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $160000000)
Year 3: $120000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $160000000)
Year 5: $120000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $160000000)
Year 10: $120000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $160000000)
Year 100: $120000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $160000000)
Key Considerations
- Uncertainty in the number of eligible businesses and their propensity to apply for new projects.
- Potential delayed revenue collection from application fees affecting current NRC funds.
- Indirect benefits to energy sustainability and climate change efforts through innovation in nuclear technology.