`[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]






                                 ______




 
               INTERNATIONAL FINANCING OF NUCLEAR ENERGY

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,
                          ILLICIT FINANCE, AND
                  INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS


                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                            JANUARY 17, 2024

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services

                           Serial No. 118-69
                           
 GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
 
 
                           
                        _______
              
             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 56-190 PDF          WASHINGTON : 2024
                          
                           
                           
                           
                           

                 HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

               PATRICK McHENRY, North Carolina, Chairman

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking 
PETE SESSIONS, Texas                     Member
BILL POSEY, Florida                  NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York
BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri         BRAD SHERMAN, California
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan              GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
ANN WAGNER, Missouri                 DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
ANDY BARR, Kentucky                  STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas                AL GREEN, Texas
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas, Vice          EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri
    Chairman                         JIM A. HIMES, Connecticut
TOM EMMER, Minnesota                 BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia            JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio
ALEXANDER X. MOONEY, West Virginia   JUAN VARGAS, California
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio                JOSH GOTTHEIMER, New Jersey
JOHN ROSE, Tennessee                 VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas
BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin               SEAN CASTEN, Illinois
WILLIAM TIMMONS, South Carolina      AYANNA PRESSLEY, Massachusetts
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina         STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada
DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania             RASHIDA TLAIB, Michigan
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin          RITCHIE TORRES, New York
ANDREW GARBARINO, New York           SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas
YOUNG KIM, California                NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
BYRON DONALDS, Florida               WILEY NICKEL, North Carolina
MIKE FLOOD, Nebraska                 BRITTANY PETTERSEN, Colorado
MIKE LAWLER, New York
ZACH NUNN, Iowa
MONICA DE LA CRUZ, Texas
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana
ANDY OGLES, Tennessee

                     Matt Hoffmann, Staff Director
          Subcommittee on National Security, Illicit Finance, 
                and International Financial Institutions

                 BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri, Chairman

ANDY BARR, Kentucky                  JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio, Ranking Member
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas                VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia            WILEY NICKEL, North Carolina
DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania             BRITTANY PETTERSEN, Colorado
YOUNG KIM, California, Vice          BILL FOSTER, Illinois
    Chairwoman                       JUAN VARGAS, California
ZACH NUNN, Iowa                      JOSH GOTTHEIMER, New Jersey
MONICA DE LA CRUZ, Texas
ANDY OGLES, Tennessee
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on:
    January 17, 2024.............................................     1
Appendix:
    January 17, 2024.............................................    35

                               WITNESSES
                      Wednesday, January 17, 2024

Judson, Timothy L., Executive Director, Nuclear Information and 
  Resource Service...............................................     9
Korsnick, Maria, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear 
  Energy Institute...............................................     4
McMurray, Nicholas, Managing Director, International and Nuclear 
  Policy, ClearPath, Inc.........................................     6
Reinke, Benjamin T. Vice President, Global Business Development, 
  X-energy, LLC..................................................     7

                                APPENDIX

Prepared statements:
    Judson, Timothy L............................................    36
    Korsnick, Maria..............................................    52
    McMurray, Nicholas...........................................    62
    Reinke, Benjamin T...........................................    72

              Additional Material Submitted for the Record

Waters, Hon. Maxine:
    Written statment of Ayumi Fukakusa, Friends of the Earth 
      Japan......................................................    92
    Written statement of Mark Z. Jacobson, Department of Civil 
      and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University.........    95
    Written responses to questions for the record submitted to 
      Timothy L. Judson..........................................   103
    Written responses to questions for the record submitted to 
      Nicholas McMurray..........................................   119


                        INTERNATIONAL FINANCING



                           OF NUCLEAR ENERGY

                              ----------                              


                      Wednesday, January 17, 2024

             U.S. House of Representatives,
                 Subcommittee on National Security,
                               Illicit Finance, and
              International Financial Institutions,
                           Committee on Financial Services,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:16 p.m., in 
room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Blaine 
Luetkemeyer [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Luetkemeyer, Williams of 
Texas, Meuser, Kim, Nunn, De La Cruz; Beatty, Gonzalez, Nickel, 
Pettersen, Foster, Vargas, and Gottheimer.
    Ex officio present: Representative Waters.
    Also present: Representative Hill.
    Chairman Luetkemeyer. The Subcommittee on National 
Security, Illicit Finance, and International Financial 
Institutions will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the subcommittee at any time.
    Today's hearing is entitled, ``International Financing of 
Nuclear Energy.''
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening 
statement.
    First, I would like to welcome my colleagues and our 
witnesses to this hearing on international financing of nuclear 
energy. Clean nuclear power, such as that produced back in my 
district in the Ameren Callaway Plant, accounts for over a 
quarter of the world's low-carbon electricity and nearly 20 
percent of all electricity in our country. In the words of the 
Department of Energy, ``Nuclear power is the most reliable 
energy source, and it is not even close.'' Nuclear is also one 
of the safest sources of power, with one analysis estimating 
that it has been less risky to human health than even wind or 
hydropower.
    Of course, some have tried to demonize nuclear energy in 
the past, arguing that the world will eliminate carbon 
emissions through renewable energy alone. The results have been 
catastrophic. Germany, for example, has abandoned nuclear 
power, while just next door, France uses it to produce two-
thirds of its electricity, and what is the result? Germany's 
per capita emissions are nearly double that of France, and 
while German households saw gas prices soar by over 50 percent 
last year due to the country's reliance on Russia, the French 
are now lowering regional costs by exporting clean energy to 
the rest of Europe. Clearly, nuclear is essential to energy 
security.
    At the same time, we cannot limit its reach to advanced 
economies. For instance, half of Sub-Saharan Africa lacks 
access to electricity, and the renewables-only crowd wants to 
keep it that way. This has opened up the door for China and 
Russia to explore nuclear cooperation, not just on the 
continent, but elsewhere in the developing world. It is past 
due for the United States to get back in the game and compete. 
Nuclear power provides us with a unique opportunity to push for 
a positive national security agenda.
    In 2019, Republicans worked to create the China and 
Transformational Exports Program (CTEP) at the Export-Import 
Bank (EXIM), which allows the Bank to compete more effectively 
against Chinese nuclear projects abroad. This will allow the 
U.S. to provide foreign countries with real options to power 
their development with abundant clean energy rather than 
constantly browbeat them about climate change. I have been 
pleased to see EXIM engaging in several discussions on future 
nuclear deals around the world, from Asia to Europe to Latin 
America.
    Republicans on this committee have also pushed the World 
Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development 
(EBRD) to finally end their bans on nuclear financing, which 
fly in the face of those organizations' rhetoric on climate. 
These lenders should be active in emerging markets and 
developing nations, not sit idly by while China and Russia try 
to export inferior nuclear technologies.
    I have been pleased to see progress in our efforts to 
enlist the international financial institutions for this cause. 
Just last month, the U.S. and 19 other countries committed to 
tripling nuclear energy capacity globally. This pledge 
explicitly encourages the World Bank and regional development 
banks (RDBs) to include nuclear in their lending policies. EBRD 
has already signaled that it may consider opportunities to 
support nuclear power projects.
    While Republicans certainly have policy differences with 
this Administration, our shared support for nuclear financing 
has been a welcome source of cooperation. I am hopeful it will 
continue this year. For today's hearing, we took great care to 
ensure our panel reflects scientific expertise, and I am 
pleased to see that many of our witnesses have engineering 
backgrounds. If we want to find genuine solutions to promote 
national security through nuclear energy policy, it needs to be 
fact-based and free of outdated ideologies. I want to thank our 
witnesses again for appearing before us today. I look forward 
to their testimony.
    The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Ohio, Mrs. Beatty, for 4 
minutes for an opening statement.
    Mrs. Beatty. Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 
holding this hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for 
appearing here today to discuss international financing of 
nuclear energy projects. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for also 
sharing their expertise when you talk about science and 
research, and I would be remiss if I didn't say I have two who 
were at the Ohio State University. So thank you to our witness, 
Mr. McMurray, and thank you to our witness, Mr. Reinke, for all 
the work that you have done.
    As we know, international financial institutions (IFIs) 
such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF),--I am a stickler 
for not throwing out all the things without telling you what 
they are--the World Bank, and the multilateral development 
banks (MDBs) are central pillars of the global economic 
cooperation that promotes international financial stability and 
development. In recent years, the IMF and the World Bank have 
expanded their focus, helping to develop countries' responses 
to economic disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, as 
well as addressing climate change and its economic 
implications.
    The United States has led the charge in calling on the 
global community to meet the challenges of today. Treasury 
Secretary Janet Yellen has urged the World Bank to develop an 
evolution roadmap to respond to the global crises on climate 
change. The United States has also led efforts within the G7 
and the G20 to support a $100-billion Resilience and 
Sustainability Trust (RST) at the IMF, that would advance 
climate resilience and financing for low- and middle-income 
countries. Notably, while the Congress has appropriated funds 
for the RST, these funds have not been authorized by this 
committee due to Republican Members' opposition.
    To confront global climate crises, we must dramatically 
reduce the use of fossil fuels and transition to clean energy. 
As we also assess which alternative energy options to pursue, 
we must carefully and accurately consider every factor to 
ensure that we transition to energy sources that are best for 
the environment and for our global communities. Nuclear energy 
is certainly a better alternative to more fossil fuel 
development, and has a role to play in clean energy and 
transition. Of course, this energy source is also not without 
its own unique hazards, which must be taken into consideration. 
It, furthermore, must be done to ensure that countries powered 
by nuclear energy are properly managed in disposing of their 
toxic radioactive waste, including the United States.
    Thank you again to our witnesses, and I look forward to 
your testimony. I am struggling a little bit--I have an eye 
allergy--so thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Ranking Member Beatty. It 
looks like the chairman and the ranking member of the full 
Financial Services Committee are not here, so we will move on 
and welcome our guests today to testify before us.
    Again, I want to thank each of you for waiting until this 
afternoon. Mother Nature showed that she is more powerful than 
Congress. We sometimes think that all power emanates from us, 
and, once again, we are taught another lesson that Mother 
Nature can wield a stick once in a while and make us bend to 
her will as well, and so we did. I know Mrs. Beatty and I both 
wound up having to come in this morning instead of yesterday 
because of the weather, but we do thank all of you for waiting 
around this afternoon or coming this afternoon to testify 
before us.
    With that, we have Ms. Maria Korsnick, the president and 
chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute; Mr. 
Nicholas McMurray, the managing director of international and 
nuclear policy at ClearPath; Dr. Ben Reinke, the vice president 
of global business development at X-energy; and Mr. Timothy 
Judson, the executive director of the Nuclear Information and 
Resource Service.
    Each of you will have 5 minutes to give an oral 
presentation on your testimony. And without objection, each of 
your written statements will be made a part of the record.
    And just as a side note, those microphones in front of you 
move forward, so if you want to pull it close to you--sort of 
take a bite out of it. The gentleman on the end down there is 
taking down our discussion today, and sometimes, if those 
microphones are not close enough, it is hard for him to record 
what you say, so we will take a thumbs up from him whenever we 
have a problem or need to stop, but anyway, please speak into 
the microphone and draw it as close to you as you can.
    And with that, Ms. Korsnick, you are recognized for 5 
minutes for your oral remarks. Welcome.

  STATEMENT OF MARIA KORSNICK, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
               OFFICER, NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE

    Ms. Korsnick. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good 
morning. I am Maria Korsnick, president and CEO of the Nuclear 
Energy Institute, representing more than 350 organizations in 
an industry that directly employs nearly 100,000 people 
throughout the United States. I appreciate the invitation to 
testify, and I thank Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member 
Beatty, and the entire subcommittee, as well as Full Committee 
Chairman McHenry and Ranking Member Waters, for continuing to 
recognize that clean nuclear energy is crucial to meeting our 
nation's national security, energy independence, climate, and 
environmental goals.
    Let me be blunt. Commercial nuclear technology was invented 
in the United States, and U.S. companies lead the world in 
innovating the next generation of nuclear. We operate the 
largest and highest-performing fleet of reactors in the world. 
However, we are behind Russia and China when it comes to 
exports. Therefore, it is Russia and China that are building 
strategic 100-year partnerships and setting the standards for 
global nuclear safety.
    You see, when we export U.S. technology, we export world-
leading U.S. standards on nuclear safety, security, and 
nonproliferation. The best way for us to raise global standards 
is for us to be the ones on the ground safely building, 
operating, and maintaining U.S.-designed, Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC)-reviewed nuclear power plants.
    Beyond the national security implications, when the U.S. 
builds nuclear plants around the world, we are reducing global 
carbon emissions and creating thousands of American jobs. 
Nuclear power exports are a win for American and global 
security, a win for American workers, and a win for the 
environment.
    My written testimony outlines several policy proposals that 
will help the United States compete and win in the global 
energy marketplace, but I want to highlight three crucial 
points. First, Russia is beating us in the global market, and 
China is not far behind. Russia is the world's dominant global 
nuclear supplier. Rosatom, Russia's state-owned nuclear energy 
conglomerate, currently has 70 percent of the global export 
market for new nuclear construction. A Russian-built reactor 
recently began operation in Belarus, and Russia is building 
reactors in Egypt, Turkey, Bangladesh, and other countries.
    Like Russia, China has designated nuclear energy exports as 
a strategic foreign policy priority. Nuclear energy has been 
included in China's Belt and Road Initiative since its launch 
in 2017. China now operates 55 reactors and, last year, was 
second only to the U.S. in total nuclear generation. With 22 
more units under construction and 42 units planned, China's 
state-owned nuclear enterprise has an unmatched scale, and it 
is becoming increasingly aggressive in the global marketplace, 
including two recently-completed reactors in Pakistan.
    Second, global demand for nuclear energy is unprecedented. 
Governments around the world recognize that by making clean, 
always-on nuclear energy a linchpin in their energy systems, 
they can decarbonize their electric grid and strengthen their 
energy independence, because energy security is national 
security. Before Russia's invasion of Ukraine, we were already 
seeing robust growth in nuclear energy demand. Following the 
invasion, nations that had grown reliant on Russian gas 
realized just how vulnerable they had become.
    Evidence of increased demand is everywhere. At the recent 
COP28, which one headline declared the Nuclear COP, 2 dozen 
nations signed a pledge to triple global nuclear energy 
capacity by 2050. In the European Union (EU), where nuclear 
energy had once fallen out of favor, a majority of governments 
recently voted to include nuclear in the EU's net zero list of 
strategic technologies, and approximately 30 countries, one-
third of which are in Africa, are now considering planning or 
starting nuclear power programs for the very first time. I meet 
with leaders from these countries regularly, and most of them 
want nothing to do with Russia or China. They want to work with 
the United States and our partners, but we must be able to at 
least come close to matching the deals that our competitors 
offer.
    And finally, we need to give U.S. companies the tools they 
need to compete and win against state-owned enterprises from 
Russia and China. The U.S. must place the same significant 
strategic value on nuclear energy exports as Russia and China 
do. We must support our companies with the necessary financing 
tools to compete and win. Russia offers terms and conditions 
that, at present, the U.S. cannot match. By enacting the 
International Nuclear Energy Financing Act, and the other 
proposals offered in my written testimony, Congress can 
strengthen America's hand and help ensure the U.S. remains an 
influential participant in the global nuclear energy market, 
thereby safeguarding our national security interests.
    The industry I represent looks forward to working with you 
to ensure our nation can take full advantage of all that 
nuclear energy has to offer. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Korsnick can be found on 
page 52 of the appendix.]
    Chairman Luetkemeyer. Very good. Mr. McMurray, you are now 
recognized for 5 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS MCMURRAY, MANAGING DIRECTOR, 
       INTERNATIONAL AND NUCLEAR POLICY, CLEARPATH, INC.

    Mr. McMurray. Thank you. Good morning. Chairman 
Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member Beatty, and members of the 
committee. My name is Nicholas McMurray, and I am the managing 
director of international and nuclear policy at ClearPath.
    This committee is vital in financing the global deployment 
of American clean energy. Today, the U.S. aims to renew its 
global energy leadership. Recently, the U.S. and over 20 allies 
pledged to triple global nuclear energy capacity by 2050. This 
commitment recognizes that reliable energy, like nuclear, is 
necessary to reduce global emissions, while meeting economic 
development goals. However, the International Energy Agency's 
(IEA's) 2023 World Energy Outlook shows that existing policies 
make this goal incredibly challenging. In particular, the IEA 
projects that existing policies would only allow for a roughly 
48-percent increase. Tripling global nuclear capacity means 
deploying nuclear power plants domestically and building 
American reactors abroad. Thus, we need policy changes.
    I will cover several topics today: first, the U.S. must 
remain competitive against China and Russia; second, we must 
overcome financing obstacles for U.S. projects; and third, we 
must reform burdensome regulatory requirements.
    While the U.S. still has the world's largest domestic 
operating nuclear fleet of 93 reactors, the pace at which China 
is building reactors should be worrisome to anyone who wants 
the U.S. to remain a leader. Currently, China has 55 operating 
reactors and is actively building more, while the U.S. only has 
one commercial reactor under construction. It is obvious, 
through China's Belt and Road Initiative, and Russia's invasion 
of Ukraine, that they want to exert their influence globally. 
They are both developing export markets and providing 
significant financial support for their nuclear deals. For 
example, Russia gave $25 billion in financing to Egypt, which 
was around 85 percent of the full project cost, and China 
recently announced it would provide the full cost of a new 
reactor, $4 billion to $8 billion, to Pakistan.
    This focus has led to China and Russia constructing 64 new 
reactors abroad since 2000, and since reactors operate for 60 
years or more, those host nations will become dependent on 
China and Russia for decades. Fortunately, the U.S. private 
sector is up to this competitive challenge. The shale gas boom 
in America is a perfect example of successful public-private 
partnerships, and the advanced nuclear market could see similar 
success.
    Congress can provide further direction to various 
government agencies by developing a U.S. nuclear export 
strategy, supercharging U.S. export finance tools, and removing 
red tape that prevents the scaling of nuclear technology.
    Unfortunately, the current U.S. approach to exporting 
nuclear energy is fragmented. The process of exporting a 
reactor involves coordination among multiple entities, 
including the Departments of State, Energy, and Commerce, the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the EXIM Bank, the U.S. 
International Development Finance Corporation, the U.S. Trade 
Representative, the National Security Council, and others. 
Aligning these agencies is important, but innovative U.S. 
nuclear companies are not operating in a fair and open market, 
as they must compete against generous state-sponsored 
financing. In fact, between 2016 and 2021, China's financing of 
all global energy initiatives outpaced the combined 
contributions of all significant Western-backed development 
banks.
    Leveling the playing field for clean energy exports will 
require thoughtful policy reforms. To that end, legislation, 
such as the bipartisan International Nuclear Energy Act, would 
develop a civil nuclear export strategy, and the International 
Nuclear Energy Financing Act would require the U.S. Executive 
Director at the World Bank to advocate for funding nuclear 
energy. The World Bank and other multilateral development banks 
(MDBs) play a significant role in infrastructure planning 
worldwide, and they can be instrumental in increasing global 
nuclear deployment.
    Beyond financing, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will 
almost certainly need to license a reactor designed in the U.S. 
before another country would be willing to build it. However, 
even after the NRC licenses a reactor, it still must receive 
export approvals and be licensed by the other country. 
Therefore, an efficient and agile U.S. regulator is fundamental 
not only for domestic deployment but also for ensuring U.S. 
competitiveness abroad.
    In conclusion, the U.S. needs to be the global leader in 
nuclear exports, and there are solutions to accomplish that 
goal. An all-of-the-above clean energy strategy is the only 
viable path for achieving global emissions reduction targets. 
The world must quickly deploy clean, reliable, and affordable 
energy, like nuclear power, and if the world and other 
international financing institutions reassess their nuclear 
energy policies rather than simply saying no, we will be on a 
clear path. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. McMurray can be found on 
page 62 of the appendix.]
    Chairman Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Mr. McMurray. Next, we 
have Dr. Reinke, who is recognized for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN T. REINKE, VICE PRESIDENT, GLOBAL 
              BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, X-ENERGY, LLC

    Mr. Reinke. Thank you, Chairman Luetkemeyer and Ranking 
Member Beatty, for the opportunity to testify today. My name is 
Benjamin Reinke, and I serve as X-energy's vice president of 
global business development. X-energy is a nuclear reactor and 
fuel design engineering company headquartered up the road in 
Rockville, Maryland, with over 400 employees and hundreds more 
contractors that are a part of our design team. At X-energy, we 
manufacture TRISO-X Fuel, which is our proprietary version of 
Tri-structural ISOtropic-coated particle fuel.
    The safety and economic case for our reactors starts with 
TRISO-X. This fuel was originally developed by the Department 
of Energy (DOE) and qualified through a series of experiments 
that validated TRISO's safety case. Under that program, 
irradiated TRISO particles survived tests at nearly 3,300 
degrees Fahrenheit for over 12\1/2\ days. This is why DOE calls 
TRISO the most robust nuclear fuel on earth. Each pebble 
contains over 18,000 of these chia-seed-sized TRISO particles 
in a graphite matrix.
    Our advanced, high-temperature, gas-cooled small modular 
reactor is called the Xe-100. It produces 200 megawatts or 80 
megawatts electric and has advantages in sustainability, 
economics, reliability, and safety over conventional reactors. 
The Xe-100 core, consisting of these TRISO-X pebbles, can never 
melt down, even in the worst-case accident scenario. We flow 
helium through the core instead of water and achieve much 
higher temperatures for operations than today's reactors. Our 
modular design allows the number of reactors to be matched to 
the needs of each customer, with up to 12 operating from a 
single control room. Importantly, the Xe-100 can load flow, 
making it ideally suited for pairing with renewables, with the 
ability to ramp between 40 percent and 100 percent power in 
only 12 minutes.
    I want to recognize the critical topic of this hearing and 
the importance of its timing. There is a global race underway 
for the development and, more importantly, the deployment of 
clean energy technologies. Decades have passed since the U.S. 
held its proper role as the global nuclear energy leader, and 
in that vacuum, Russian and Chinese state-owned enterprises 
have firmly established their positions. Today, China and 
Russia account for 70 percent of planned or under-construction 
reactors worldwide.
    The good news is that the U.S. is positioned to jump back 
into the lead because of technologies like our Xe-100. Our 
first project will be deployed under DOE's Advanced Reactor 
Demonstration Program, or ARDP, a program that matches private 
sector investment dollar for dollar to enable X-energy to 
complete the design of the Xe-100, construct our first 
commercial scale TRISO-X manufacturing facility, and license, 
construct, and commission our first plant for Dow, a four-unit, 
320-megawatt electric plant that will provide all of the steam 
and electricity required for Dow's Seadrift operations, a 
polyethylene manufacturing complex located in Seadrift, Texas. 
Our ARDP fast follower project is with Energy Northwest in 
Richland, Washington for a project to develop a minimum of 4 
reactors and up to 12 Xe-100 units on their project site.
    While there are many use cases for SMRs for utility 
deployments, two are the most dominant in driving demand today. 
The first is coal-to-nuclear conversion, and the second is data 
center demand growth.
    At X-energy, we have seen growing evidence of customer 
interest from around the world. We have been paid to conduct 
studies across market segments and geographies, including 
integrated steel manufacturing, end-of-life coal plants, and 
hydrogen production, just to name a few, but don't just take my 
word for it. There is ample evidence that nuclear energy is 
back in vogue globally and that the fundamentals are better now 
than ever. DOE estimates that the U.S. will require an 
incremental 200 gigawatts of new nuclear by 2050. This ambition 
was carried forward by the Administration to COP28, where it 
received support from an additional 21 nations, all pledging to 
triple nuclear capacity by 2050.
    The opportunity is enormous, yet major challenges remain. 
Number one, we must deploy domestically before we can sell 
internationally. My team and I hear this in the global nuclear 
marketplace every single day. In order to do this, we must 
remain committed to a fully-implemented ARDP. We also must 
remain committed to a technology-neutral tax credit system like 
what is found in the IRA that provides incentives for nuclear 
that are equal for the first time to renewables, and we must 
redevelop the U.S. nuclear fuel supply chain by ensuring there 
is sufficient funding for DOE's High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium 
Availability Program.
    Number two, we must remove barriers to entry for new 
advanced reactor technologies, first in the U.S. and then 
abroad, especially focusing on rightsizing regulatory 
requirements for these inherently safe advanced reactors.
    Number three, we must have all possible financing tools in 
the toolkit to support U.S. nuclear exports, which means adding 
nuclear to the list of technologies for which the U.S. Export-
Import Bank can match Chinese loan terms, opening up the 
program to match Russian terms, and advocating aggressively for 
the World Bank to reverse its ban on providing nuclear loans.
    And number four, the U.S. must remember how to lead from 
the front again on nuclear energy.
    Thank you again for holding this hearing and for continuing 
bipartisan support for the U.S. trajectory back to the front of 
the global nuclear energy leadership pack. We are not there 
yet, but we are gaining speed. I look forward to answering your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Reinke can be found on page 
72 of the appendix.]
    Chairman Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Dr. Reinke. Mr. Judson, 
you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY L. JUDSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NUCLEAR 
                INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE

    Mr. Judson. Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member Beatty, 
and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 
to testify today. My name is Timothy Judson, and I am the 
executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource 
Service, which is a nonprofit environmental organization 
founded in 1978 to help grassroots organizations and 
individuals understand nuclear energy issues better and to 
advocate for a renewable energy future.
    The topic of today's hearing is part of an especially 
important conversation that is happening around the world, and 
it is really important that we are having this conversation. 
The world is eager for the U.S. to play a larger role in 
financing energy infrastructure for countries that are less 
developed than ours. In fact, the world needs that right now 
because of the global climate crisis. Unfortunately, the issue 
is, what do countries actually need financing for, and, 
unfortunately, for H.R. 806, the answer is that it is not for 
nuclear energy infrastructure.
    If we go forward with prioritizing financing for nuclear 
energy infrastructure at IFIs, we are actually going to miss 
the target. We would be putting our eggs in the wrong basket 
because what countries actually need for energy finance is 
different. The reasons for that--well, there are a lot of 
reasons to oppose nuclear energy, and I list some of those in 
my written testimony, but, unfortunately, for my side in this 
debate, that is not the reason why IFIs haven't been financing 
nuclear power projects. The reality is that nuclear power 
projects, nuclear power plants, nuclear reactors are too 
expensive, they take too long, and they are too fraught with 
uncertainty for cost overruns, delays, and even cancellations, 
than they can justify making loans for; there is too great a 
risk of default.
    And, in fact, we have acknowledged this in our own country 
because we have had to use extraordinary means to finance 
nuclear energy projects in this country. The 2005 Energy Policy 
Act tried to kickstart a whole renaissance of nuclear energy in 
this country by providing $18.5 billion in loan guarantees to 
basically insure the industry against defaults, and States have 
offered construction-work-in-progress financing to basically 
have ratepayers pay the cost of financing for nuclear projects 
before they ever generate any electricity.
    And still, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, while it led to 
28 proposals for new reactors around the country, 24 of those 
never started construction, 2 of them were canceled after $9 
billion was spent, and the other two, that are now finally 
being completed, cost over $30 billion, and are over 7 years 
behind schedule. The Georgia Public Service Commission staff 
had to testify last summer that there is no net benefit to the 
project at this point for Georgia ratepayers. And we are asking 
other countries that have less wealth than us to take on this 
financial risk.
    We have heard a lot of claims today about the fact that 
this is all going to change, that nuclear power is going to 
become more affordable, that they are going to be able to build 
reactors faster. The trouble is that there is no evidence for 
this. There has been no SMRs or other advanced reactors built 
in this country. None of them have even had their designs 
approved yet, and as we have heard, other countries aren't 
going to go forward with that until they are, until they have 
been demonstrated. And so, we are talking about asking the 
international financial institutions to prioritize funding 
these projects rather than other things. And that is going to 
miss the mark because other countries need infrastructure now. 
They don't need infrastructure in 20 years.
    And, in fact, what we just saw happen at the Global Climate 
Conference in Dubai was, yes, there were 22 nations that 
stepped up and said that we need to triple nuclear energy by 
2050, but there were 130 nations that stepped forward to say, 
we need to triple renewable energy and double energy efficiency 
by 2030. Now, if we triple nuclear energy by 2050, that is not 
even going to be as much electricity as renewable energy 
generates worldwide today.
    To be clear about why this is the case, you can look at 
some of the reports that have been published claiming that we 
are about to enter into a global nuclear renaissance. A report 
by Third Way published in 2022 claimed that there was a 
tripling of the global market for nuclear energy, but it was 
based on an electricity price of $90 a megawatt hour. That is 
less than half the actual cost of nuclear power plants that are 
being developed now at $180 a megawatt hour, but it is also 
significantly greater than the cost of wind and solar, at $50 
and $60 a megawatt hour.
    The International Energy Agency issued a report last week 
that confirmed that we are on pace to be able to reach a 
tripling of renewable energy by 2030. The barriers are actually 
that countries need more access to financing, so that is really 
where the U.S. can play a critical role for the rest of the 
world and show real leadership, but if we get into a debate 
about whether we should be competing with Russia and China on 
nuclear power, we are going to be talking about striking a 
fight over the smallest piece of the pie. I conclude my 
remarks.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Judson can be found on page 
36 of the appendix.]
    Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman's time has expired. I 
will now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions. And I 
thank each of you for your testimony today.
    Mr. McMurray, you talked in broad terms about some of the 
concerns that we have with China and Russia filling the void 
that we left when we basically decided not to participate at 
our previous level with regards to helping other countries find 
nuclear answers to some of their questions. You all have talked 
about the greatness of nuclear from the standpoint of solving a 
lot of problems on a worldwide basis. Can you elaborate a 
little bit on that? From the standpoint that Mr. Judson said, 
it doesn't work, he doesn't believe it is cost-effective. Would 
you like to give some information and some testimony to offset 
that?
    Mr. McMurray. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
for your leadership on this committee. We need a wide variety 
of clean energy technologies, nuclear being one of them. We 
have seen China and Russia control the global marketplace on 
nuclear exports recently, so these projects are being built. 
The question is now, can the U.S. regain its global leadership 
on nuclear energy? And we are going to need all of the above 
for this because countries are going to be interested in 
building whatever clean energy resources they have available. 
So, if U.S. institutions, such as EXIM, are not proactively 
going out to support these projects, and if the World Bank and 
other multilateral development banks are not supporting these 
projects, countries that are expected to increase their demand 
for energy will search for financing elsewhere, and we have 
seen that happening right now with China and Russia.
    Chairman Luetkemeyer. Okay. Dr. Reinke, you represent a 
company that is producing a new kind of nuclear facility. Mr. 
Judson said it is not tested and not able to be implemented 
yet. Would you like to discuss that a little bit?
    Mr. Reinke. Yes. Thank you for the question. There are a 
couple of important things to note. One is that pretty much all 
of the nuclear technologies under development today have a 
pedigree of having been tested at a pilot scale in a test 
reactor or, in some cases, commercially in the past. Now, many 
of these technologies were extremely promising, and we 
developed them first here in the United States, typically 
tested in the Idaho desert, although also in many other places. 
At Department of Energy National Laboratories, we also tested 
reactors. All of those proved very useful in understanding the 
basic physics and understanding also what some of the major 
economic challenges would be to bringing those reactors to 
market.
    Today, we have a large fleet of large, light-water reactors 
in the United States and abroad, and that technology has proven 
to be very useful and a very successful program across the 
world to build those reactors. Our technology is one of many 
that has been tested and then demonstrated at a commercial 
scale multiple times around the world. Today, the Chinese 
Government operates the only commercial high-temperature gas-
cooled reactor after a long development program to try to get 
into first place with that technology. Ours is simply picking 
up where those left off and taking the modern tools that we 
have available today to have a better, more economic fuel and a 
better, more economic reactor.
    Chairman Luetkemeyer. Okay. Each of you mentioned the fact 
that we are losing the competitive race with Russia and China 
with regards to nuclear, which gives them an edge when it comes 
to international relationships on a geopolitical basis around 
the world. And part of this comes from the fact that the IMF 
and the World Bank and, even to a certain extent, the EXIM 
Bank, are not necessarily or haven't necessarily in the past 
been very active with regards to financing nuclear. It seems to 
be turning. There seems to be an awareness now that they need 
to be financing this. Ms. Korsnick, would you like to comment 
on that just a little bit----
    Ms. Korsnick. Yes, thank you.
    Chairman Luetkemeyer. ----on how we can improve that part 
of the puzzle.
    Ms. Korsnick. Sure. Yes, and I would like to give a shout 
out to Chair Lewis of the EXIM Bank. I think she is absolutely 
open to nuclear conversations and financing, but to your point, 
I think to level the playing field between the U.S. and these 
state-owned enterprises, we really need to enhance EXIM Bank's 
offerings. I give some examples in my written testimony, but we 
have to enhance the Bank. We also have to catalyze private 
financing. And then, I would say more a coordinated sort of 
whole-of-government approach. It is going to take the Commerce 
and State Departments, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 
Some of this financing that would be helpful, is that front-end 
financing, the part where you are doing feasibility studies. It 
doesn't cost a lot, but it gets your foot in the door. And we 
really have to look at, how do you start that relationship with 
that country that is hungry to build this technology, and we 
need to get the U.S. established in a leadership role.
    Chairman Luetkemeyer. Okay. Is there a prohibition right 
now against the World Bank or the IMF financing those kind of 
preliminary studies?
    Ms. Korsnick. Yes. Feasibility studies are difficult to get 
financed.
    Chairman Luetkemeyer. Okay. So what you are suggesting is, 
it would be nice if they went along and started to do that, and 
we, by backstopping this with some support, would be able then 
to hopefully allow them to purchase down the road our own 
nuclear plants. Is that what you are saying?
    Ms. Korsnick. Absolutely, and it could be a combination of 
TDA, DFC, EXIM. We have to just look at that front end so that, 
as I said, we are getting the U.S. established.
    Chairman Luetkemeyer. Very good. My time has expired. Thank 
you very much. With that, I will recognize the ranking member 
of the subcommittee, Mrs. Beatty from Ohio, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Beatty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, again, thank you 
to all of the witnesses for being here. Let's shift and talk 
about implications of changing the IFI policy. Let's go to you, 
Mr. Judson. The international financial institutions do not 
currently finance new nuclear power generation projects. Can 
you discuss the ramifications of the IFIs changing their 
internal policies to allow for it? For example, safety and 
security measures, oversight, et cetera, how feasible is all of 
this?
    Mr. Judson. Sure. I think it really depends on whether the 
nuclear industry can actually produce a product that they would 
be able to finance and that other countries would be able to 
justify buying. The reality is that what we are seeing in terms 
of the trends with new reactors in the U.S. isn't encouraging 
for that. For instance, the first and sort of the furthest 
along of these new designs was the new scale VOYGR SMR that has 
been worked on for 20 years. They proposed their first project 
in 2015, the Carbon Free Power Project in Idaho. And 
originally, in 2016, they were projecting a price for that 
reactor, which would have been a 12 reactor, 600-megawatt power 
plant, for $3 billion, and that would have been a pretty 
impressive accomplishment. But as the years went on, NuScale 
had to keep on adjusting its estimated price, so by the time 
the project was canceled in November of last year, the cost had 
tripled to $9.3 billion for a 460-megawatt power plant, and 
they were already 4 years behind their original proposed 
schedule, and they hadn't even broken ground on the project, 
much less gotten it approved.
    And I think the industry is reckoning with, is small 
actually better than the large reactors that have already 
proven too unaffordable even in the United States? At $9.3 
billion, NuScale's price would have been the equivalent of $20 
million a megawatt. That is more expensive than the Vogtle 
reactors that are being completed now in Georgia, and that is 
before ever breaking ground. And what we know from experience 
is that nuclear projects get more expensive as you start to 
build them.
    And that is, I think, the real struggle with answering this 
question about what IFIs would do, is whether the industry can 
produce a product that they could actually finance or that 
countries would actually buy. I think what we are seeing is 
that there were 507 gigawatts of renewable energy brought 
online last year. That is 25 percent more capacity than the 
entire nuclear industry worldwide, and the International Energy 
Agency projections, that is going to increase potentially to 
over 900 gigawatts a year by the end of this decade.
    And while we are talking about exporting a few nuclear 
reactors around the world, the energy market is much bigger 
than that. So, if we are going to stake our international 
energy financing policy around this narrow share of the market, 
then we are going to miss the boat with the huge market for 
renewable energy and related products and services that are 
already developed. And by the way, there are U.S. companies 
that are in those businesses. What they have to offer just 
wouldn't be prioritized for international finance under this 
legislation.
    Mrs. Beatty. Can you tell me about that?
    Mr. Reinke. Yes, ma'am. That is a TRISO pebble, so it is 
made of graphite. Now, this one is not bearing any uranium, in 
case you are wondering.
    [laughter]
    Mr. Reinke. But in general, those would be bearing uranium, 
so they are very small chia-seed-like-sized particles, and 
those particles are made of uranium oxycarbide. It is a 
chemistry that was invented here in the U.S. by the Department 
of Energy and its national labs, and then we wrap that in four 
layers of alternating high-temperature tolerant ceramics. Why 
does that matter? Ceramics don't melt.
    So when you take a ceramic material like what that is made 
of, and on the inside you have silicon carbide, you get a very 
robust layer, and that layer allows the fuel to run up to very 
high temperatures without failing, and it maintains the 
integrity of those teeny, tiny pressure vessels, basically 
obviating the need for the sort of large concrete steel vessel 
that you see on reactors today. So, we pack 18,000 of the 
little chia seeds into that graphite matrix that is in your 
hand, and 220,000 of those pebbles go into our reactor. It is a 
small modular reactor, but it is not that small, and, 
ultimately, that is how we make 80 megawatts of electric power, 
and that is what we will do for Dow with our first project 
before the end of the decade.
    Mrs. Beatty. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I 
am going to pass this to Mr. Foster, our scientist.
    Mr. Foster. Please----
    Mrs. Beatty. Nope. I am not doing any of that. Here you go.
    [laughter]
    Mrs. Beatty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Mrs. Beatty. With that, we 
go to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Williams, who is also the 
Chair of the House Small Business Committee, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Williams of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would 
like to get that and throw it and see what happens with it.
    [laughter]
    Mr. Williams of Texas. Nuclear power is a viable, clean 
energy source of many of my constituents, and I understand 
firsthand, as Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant is located in 
the rural part of my district, in Glen Rose, Texas. For years, 
this 2-unit nuclear fuel plant has been supplying energy to 
Texans by powering over a million homes and around 500,000 
homes during peak usage times. Nuclear power in the United 
States is one of the safest of all energy sources, even 
compared to other low-carbon options. I have always supported 
utilizing an all-of-the-above energy approach for the U.S. to 
compete on the world stage, which includes expanding the United 
States' nuclear energy profile. As a global leader in the 
energy industry, we must ensure bad actors like Russia and 
China do not dominate nuclear construction because energy 
security is part of our national security.
    So, Mr. McMurray, could you elaborate on the importance of 
strengthening our nuclear portfolio at home and abroad, and how 
does a strong nuclear profile improve domestic energy security?
    Mr. McMurray. Yes. Thank you for your question. Having a 
wide variety of nuclear technologies helps us on the 
international market. The large reactors that operate in your 
district, the other reactors coming online in Georgia, and the 
advanced reactors that the Banner Corporation (BANR) is 
developing, as well as the variety of other technologies, give 
us more options for exporting for different countries that may 
not want a large reactor; they might only require a smaller 
reactor. So, supporting the domestic industry to demonstrate 
these helps the U.S. be more competitively internationally.
    As for doing that, that is where we have things like 
ensuring we can build them the Advanced Reactor Demonstration 
Program, other policies to bring those reactors online, 
improving the regulatory environment to also support some of 
these new technologies that have different fuels or coolants or 
safety cases, and then, on the international side, opening up 
those financing opportunities from DFC or EXIM or the World 
Bank to build that market and build the expertise so these 
companies have that line of sight to be able to export their 
technologies.
    Mr. Williams of Texas. Okay. The People's Republic of China 
and the Russian Federation have been looking to bolster their 
nuclear footprint in other countries across Europe and South 
America, Africa, and South Asia. These bad actors are using the 
global nuclear energy market to increase their profile and 
influence in countries that are in need of sound energy 
infrastructure, and the problem is that the reactors being 
built in these countries by the Russians and the Chinese are 
incredibly more dangerous than the technology and reactors used 
by the United States and Japan. So, we cannot allow our enemies 
to grow their influence in vulnerable nations and allow these 
countries to become reliant on hostile actors and unsafe 
technology.
    Ms. Korsnick, can you expand on how the Chinese and 
Russian's nuclear expansion projects are a risk to certain 
regions and how this will impact U.S. national security? And 
then lastly, how can we mitigate the risk imposed by Chinese 
and Russian nuclear energy?
    Ms. Korsnick. Yes, sir. Thank you for your question. 
Actually, I think we just watched this play out when you saw 
Europe very dependent on Russian gas, and Russia decided to 
close that pipeline, and everybody realized that they were in 
dire need of an asset that Russia controlled. So when we talk 
about Russia building in other countries, it is not because, 
out of the goodness of their heart, they feel like helping you 
build a nuclear plant. It is because they will build it, they 
will operate it, and they will be in charge of it, so they 
really are doing this strategically so that they, in fact, 
control the energy supply. And I think we don't have to look 
any further to what we just saw play out after the invasion of 
Ukraine to understand their intentions.
    In terms of what we can do about it, to finish that 
thought, we need to be relevant, and the way we get relevant is 
you play the game. You get out there. You have a technology 
that people want, and they want to do business with you. They 
already want to do business with us. What we need is to bring 
our technology to the fore and have people like EXIM Bank and 
some of these other financing institutions help us get this 
technology to our allies.
    Mr. Williams of Texas. Thank you. The business of nuclear 
financing abroad is a key tool in providing our allies with 
safe, reliable energy. We have talked a little bit about that. 
This is also a critical step in countering Chinese and Russian 
influence. In 2019, Republican members of this committee worked 
to create the China and Transformational Exports Program (CTEP) 
at the Export-Import Bank, which allows the bank to offer 
competitive financing terms to counteract Chinese financing of 
nuclear technology abroad. So, we must ensure that EXIM Bank 
can continue nuclear assistance programs and projects abroad to 
ensure that countries can thrive on safe, reliable energy 
without malign influence.
    Quickly, Dr. Reinke, how do you think the Export-Import 
Bank can be most effective in supporting the growth of the 
nuclear power and technologies here in the United States?
    Mr. Reinke. Thank you for the leadership that this 
committee has shown on trying to help EXIM get more aggressive 
in the marketplace vis-a-vis China. One of the most important 
things to do would be to explicitly add nuclear to the list of 
technologies that is available for the Chinese exemption, to 
try to be able to match terms in the marketplace for offerings 
against what the Chinese may be putting together. And the 
second thing that could be done is to basically extend that 
authority to a Russian offering as well.
    Mr. Williams of Texas. I yield back.
    Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman's time has expired. 
With that, we go to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Foster, 
who is one of our few, if not only, scientists here, who could 
probably have a really high-level conversation with our 
witnesses today, and the rest of us will just sit and watch. 
But, Mr. Foster, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Foster. Thank you, and I have to thank X-energy. I 
think it was during COVID that we had a very interesting zoom 
with your CEO, Mr. Sell?
    Mr. Reinke. Mr. Sell. Clay Sell.
    Mr. Foster. Mr. Sell, yes, and I have a lot of respect for 
your technology. I also agree with Mr. Judson that the 
challenges of nuclear are largely economic. I have been very 
surprised over the last decade to see the really remarkable 
drop in the cost of, particularly, wind energy and solar. And 
the competition long term to nuclear, you can't just compare 
the cost of adding one or two windmills or solar cells to your 
grid. You have to have a full replacement, including baseload. 
And that means the real cost comparison should be with 
renewables plus energy storage, or renewables plus enough grid 
transmission that you can effectively average over very large 
geographic regions, and either adding the extra grid or the 
extra energy storage is not cheap.
    Mr. Judson, if you have to solve the problem without 
nuclear, without baseload, what is the additional cost 
associated with putting an all-renewable solution on the grid 
right now? How much extra would you have to build? How much 
storage would you have to build and pay for?
    Mr. Judson. I think that is something that actually needs 
to be studied in detail, but what we have seen preliminarily, 
for instance, there was a really important study that was 
published in 2016 called Prosperous Renewable Maryland by the 
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. Their goal for 
the study was to evaluate the feasibility of getting to a net 
zero emissions grid by 2050 for the State of Maryland, which 
doesn't have a tremendous amount of resources for space and 
other things with renewable energy.
    And they looked at all these questions. It was very clear 
that wind and solar balance each other very well in terms of 
day and night and seasonally. When you think about the grid as 
a whole, you are not just thinking about the grid in terms of 
wind and solar power plants generating electricity, and not 
just about storage, but a whole array of grid resources, 
including demand response and flexible demand and micro grids 
and energy stored in batteries and cars. And what they found is 
that with the doubling of the economy of Maryland by 2050, and 
an increase in population that matches that, or not double, but 
an increased population, that the actual cost of a renewable 
energy system for the State of Maryland would be substantially 
less than the status quo today with 100-percent renewable 
energy.
    Mr. Foster. Okay. Yes. This is the right level to have the 
discussion. I should also say that I am very impressed by your 
first application of using this for process heat and for other 
things. That is, I think, one of the really important missing 
parts in solving the climate crisis is there are a lot of 
fossil fuels that get burned for industrial process heat, and 
technologies like yours are sort of unique in making a large 
amount of very high-temperature process heat. Can you say a 
little bit about the other markets that you are looking at, 
aside from electricity generation?
    Mr. Reinke. Yes. You have recognized, I think, a very 
important piece of the puzzle. In the United States, roughly 25 
percent of the energy emissions that we account for across-the-
board come from heavy industry, and these are the fundamental 
building blocks of our modern society. At Dow's facility, as 
you discussed, we are helping to decarbonize a polyethylene 
plant where we make products that go into solar cells. They 
make products there that, for example, provide the insulation 
and jacketing for high-voltage transmission lines, so things 
that we need across-the-board in the United States.
    In addition to the opportunities for a manufacturing plant 
like that, they are really pretty broad. I will give you a 
handful. We have conducted study work for a large, integrated 
steel manufacturer in the United States, and while that 
customer isn't ready to pull the trigger yet, we have had very 
promising results in integrating both the process heat and the 
electricity for large manufacturing products. We also have 
looked at mining applications. We think of mining as hard rock 
mining, but there are a lot of other types of mining that form 
building blocks in the world where you have to be able to 
provide a dry product at the end.
    Mr. Foster. Okay. And the last thing I would like to close 
on is the national security aspect, because for dual-use 
technologies, there is a national security interest in 
subsidizing. One example of this are drones. We are suffering 
greatly for the fact that the drone market is dominated by the 
Chinese. We would have been better off as a country to have 
subsidized the drone market so that we would dominate there. 
So, how do we think about these dual-use technologies? In my 
one second left, Ms. Korsnick, could you say a little bit about 
what you think about that?
    Ms. Korsnick. Absolutely, and I think it was stated 
earlier. It is not whether or not nuclear plants are going to 
be built. It is whether or not the United States is going to 
build them, and if you look at it that way, anything that we 
can do to encourage our fantastic technology and our strong 
safety standards makes a lot of sense.
    Mr. Foster. Okay. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman's time has expired. 
With that, we go to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Meuser, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Meuser. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and sincere 
thanks to all of you for being here. It is certainly an 
interesting and important subject.
    I am from Pennsylvania. In my district, we have the Berwick 
Susquehanna Nuclear Power Plant. We have several plants in 
Pennsylvania. Throughout Pennsylvania, we utilize nuclear, 
coal, natural gas, wind turbines, solar, thermal, and hydro, 
very diverse, all of the above, but also all of the below, as I 
like to remind people. So in this discussion, certainly 
focusing on nuclear energy, and it is the broader aspects of 
energy strategy. We are hearing about hitting capacities, these 
data centers, the amount of new levels of capacity that are 
necessary, that are really on the verge of perhaps being a very 
big problem where we simply cannot develop due to the levels of 
overall energy made available for business and homes and such.
    What I would like to know is, just how challenging is the 
regulatory environment for nuclear? Is it to the point that it 
is making it just very, very difficult for new nuclear plant 
developments because, as we all know, there are not many 
nuclear plants in development, and that is the second question. 
There are a couple, maybe in the United States I understand, 
but I will go to you, Mr. McMurray. Can you tell me what you 
think about the regulatory environment for nuclear plant 
development?
    Mr. McMurray. Yes. Thank you, Representative Meuser. The 
current regulatory framework is designed around the large 
reactors that operate in the U.S. today for the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission's requirements, decades of operating 
experience for large, light-water reactors. They are not 
designed for the new generation of reactors, like Dr. Reinke's 
company, that use different fuels and coolants and safety 
cases, the TRISO fuel, for example.
    The NRC is working to modernize this, which is important, 
and that is really an opportunity where the U.S. can also be a 
global leader, where if you have countries that are looking to 
build some of these new technologies, the Department of Energy 
and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can really take a 
proactive role for the education on the technical side or the 
education on the regulatory side.
    Mr. Meuser. Does the regulatory environment of the U.S. 
affect the international financing that takes place? I will ask 
you, Ms. Korsnick.
    Ms. Korsnick. Yes. Thank you for the question. Yes, I would 
say the performance of our regulator matters worldwide, and why 
do I say that? Because many of the other countries are looking 
to see whether our regulator approved whatever technology that 
you are talking about as they embark on it. So if our regulator 
is sluggish and slow and inefficient, and it takes much longer 
for us to get these products to the market, it affects what we 
can do in the market.
    Mr. Meuser. Okay. Nuclear plant hours in Berwick, for 
instance, is 2500 megawatts. Building one, financing it, having 
a return on investment (ROI), how feasible is that? Is that 
right now considered a worthwhile investment in this regulatory 
environment? I will ask you. Sorry. I can't see your name.
    Mr. Reinke. Me? Yes.
    Mr. Meuser. Yes.
    Mr. Reinke. The question is a great one. There are two ways 
to look at this. Number one, today in the United States, we are 
bringing two reactors online that are large, light-water 
reactors, and there are certain markets where that is doable, 
and it has taken a tremendous amount of effort to get back into 
the game. It was about 30 years before that when we last 
deployed a new reactor from scratch. Those muscles had 
atrophied.
    Now, on the other hand, there are many of our competitors 
that are developing smaller reactors. When you look at that 
question that you asked on ROI, and you take a reactor that is 
the size of the plant that you have, those plants today would 
probably cost somewhere in the range of $20 billion to $30 
billion for a couple of big units to deploy. Meanwhile, smaller 
reactors that are about an order of magnitude less would be 
somewhere in the range of about an order of magnitude less on 
the cost as well.
    So just to make the math simple, let's say you took a $25 
billion reactor and you compared it to a smaller reactor that 
cost $2.5 billion. The amount of money that you have to raise 
in that project is phased over the life of the project. My 
business development team does this on a regular basis. You 
start with studies that are not very expensive--they are on the 
order of hundreds of thousands of dollars--trying to figure out 
whether or not there is a match, and if a site is licensable 
from a nuclear perspective. You phase that in steps, each one 
being roughly an order of magnitude, and spend as you go 
through the life of the project. For a notional X-energy 
project today, for the early ones, they will be about 7 years 
in length, and that is a relationship where every year you 
decrease the risk of the project and you increase the spend. 
The type of level I am talking about in spending is what we are 
used to doing with heavy industrials today. Dow, for example, 
has a major capital budget where they allocate resources on 
that regular basis.
    Mr. Meuser. Thank you.
    Mr. Reinke. It is absolutely----
    Mr. Meuser. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
now recognizes the ranking member of the Full Committee, the 
gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Waters. Thank you very much. Mr. Judson, I was just 
talking with my staff about, and I remember very well, the 
accident at Three Mile Island nuclear facility. That impression 
was reinforced when negligence contributed to the 1986 disaster 
at Chernobyl, and more recently, an earthquake and tsunami 
caused a 2011 accident at the Fukushima nuclear plant. And 
today, Putin has repeatedly bombed nuclear facilities around 
Ukraine. Certainly, we understand that most power generation 
from nuclear energy is safe. Nearly 20 percent of the 
electricity in the United States is generated by nuclear, and 
eyewitnesses from the nuclear industry have described it as an 
improvement over fossil fuels in terms of carbon emissions. But 
that doesn't mean that we must ignore the potentiality of the 
catastrophic effects that disasters in these plants can cause 
due to negligence, intention, or natural disasters.
    Can you please comment on the essential safety aspects that 
would need to be considered and assured before any 
international financial institution invested the billions of 
dollars and decades required to develop one of these plants, 
these projects?
    Mr. Judson. Yes. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member 
Waters, and I am glad to hear some recognition of this from the 
rest of the panel, that at the bare minimum, our own nuclear 
safety regulator, the NRC, should have approved these designs 
for construction and operation in the United States. And 
preferably, before we start exporting these products to other 
countries, we should have a demonstrated track record with them 
here in the U.S., before we start selling them to other 
countries.
    And I think that the situation in Ukraine certainly shows 
in the long-term picture why we also need to be really wary 
about prioritizing exporting nuclear reactors to other 
countries, namely, that we can't guarantee whether those 
countries are going to be involved in a military conflict 
decades down the road, and whether the U.S. is going to get 
drawn into a military conflict in order to protect these 
facilities that could cause widespread environmental damage to 
those countries.
    Especially in times of war, you can imagine that the 
countries with nuclear power plants, if they are being invaded 
or if there is a civil war, that those facilities could also 
become more vulnerable to theft of nuclear materials from them. 
In addition to that, I think what we have also seen in Ukraine, 
in particular, is beyond the dangers to the nuclear power 
plants themselves, Russia has staged its military operations 
out of the Chernobyl and Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plants 
because they know that Ukraine won't attack them there because 
the danger to their own country is too great.
    So, the national security vulnerabilities that are created 
by the existence and operation of these facilities and the 
nuclear waste that they create is not something to be taken 
lightly. And I think we in the U.S. sort of tend to dismiss 
these issues out of hand because we haven't been bombed the way 
that Ukraine has been. We haven't had our infrastructure used 
against us in the way that Ukraine has. But I think when we are 
talking about prioritizing finance of nuclear energy projects 
for other countries, this is absolutely something that we need 
to think about, and it has national security implications for 
our own country as well.
    Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, and I just wanted to raise 
the question of safety because I don't think we can take the 
development of nuclear plants lightly. Everything that I 
learned about Chernobyl--the earth was contaminated, and we 
still don't know how many people eventually died. We know that 
many of them were harmed, so we have to be very careful. And if 
these bombings, and I have to find out a little bit more, 
really do take place, you could have massive destruction, and 
that worries me. And again, I am pleased that we are holding 
this hearing and that we are talking about it, but this is an 
opportunity for those who remember Chernobyl to caution all of 
us about taking the development of nuclear lightly. Thank you 
so very much.
    Mr. Judson. Thank you.
    Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentlelady yields back. The 
gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Nunn is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Nunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you 
to our panel for being here today on an issue that is important 
not only to the world, but in my home State of Iowa, a place 
where most of our energy comes actually from wind, coal, and 
gas, but nuclear has played a part in our success growing up.
    The facts are pretty simple, friends. Energy security 
equals America's national security. We have witnessed over the 
past 3 years the need of U.S. energy independence now perhaps 
more than ever. In fact, Russia's invasion of Ukraine continues 
to disrupt global natural gas prices, and Hamas' brutal attack 
on Israel is jeopardizing oil exports throughout the Middle 
East. Meanwhile, this Administration continues to prioritize a 
political green agenda that can and is hindering America's 
producers.
    In my home State, the Hawkeye State, we understand the 
importance of energy independence. We are champions of energy 
production at all-of-the-above levels, meaning that we have 
many ways that we are trying to drive energy here in the United 
States, and I believe that Congress, Mr. Chairman, must act 
proactively for the future of America's energy. Nuclear energy 
is often overlooked as a source of safe, clean, and renewable 
fuel. Lack of consensus, as we have just heard here, 
surrounding nuclear energy has stalled our implementation of 
efforts here in the United States, so when we fail to get our 
energy sector up to par, our adversaries rapidly develop, 
export, implement, and undermine the energy capabilities we 
have right here in America. Therefore, I would like to jump 
right into it and thank the witnesses for joining us.
    Ms. Korsnick, you are the president and chief executive of 
the Nuclear Energy Institute. My first question here is, in 
your expert opinion, is Russia currently selling small nuclear 
reactors, or SMRs, to our NATO allies?
    Ms. Korsnick. They have small modular reactors. I am not 
aware that they have sold them yet.
    Mr. Nunn. Understood. Does China see the production and 
export of SMRs as a critical component to their Belt and Road 
Initiative?
    Ms. Korsnick. Yes, I believe they see the export of large 
and small as part of their Belt and Road Initiative.
    Mr. Nunn. So, in short, it is safe to say that countries 
around the world, including many of our NATO allies, are 
looking to Russia and China to provide them this technology.
    Ms. Korsnick. That is correct.
    Mr. Nunn. Can the U.S. currently offer our NATO allies an 
alternative to what Russia and China are putting on the market?
    Ms. Korsnick. Yes. In Poland, for example, we have active 
contracts to sell U.S. technology reactors to Poland, also in 
Romania, and there is an open tender in the Czech Republic.
    Mr. Nunn. Very good. Do you believe that we, as the United 
States, need to be doing more to help lead in this area so that 
it is the U.S. and our allies versus our adversaries leading in 
this area?
    Ms. Korsnick. Absolutely.
    Mr. Nunn. Now, there was some conversation earlier. 
Technology has changed quite a bit since Chernobyl. You are 
working in this industry. Do you believe that current nuclear 
facilities, particularly those that are being produced here in 
the United States, bear that same risk, or has technology 
helped to mitigate a number of the issues that were raised?
    Ms. Korsnick. I have been in the nuclear industry for 37 
years, and I operated and maintained power plants for over 30 
of those years. I would live next to any nuclear plant we have 
in the United States. It's perfectly safe and perfectly good to 
export our technology. We should be very proud of U.S. 
technology. We operate the best in the world at a greater than 
90-percent capacity factor for all nuclear plants in the United 
States for over 20 years, and you don't do that because you got 
lucky. You do that because you are damn good.
    Mr. Nunn. I think it is safe to say not only would you be 
safe, but you would probably have a little bit more money in 
your pocket as well because your energy would be lower produced 
right here in America. I appreciate that.
    Dr. Reinke, I would like to turn to you. As vice president 
of global business development at X-energy, does nuclear energy 
supremacy mean national security here in the United States?
    Mr. Reinke. Yes.
    Mr. Nunn. What does the U.S. stand to lose if we allow our 
adversaries to lead on nuclear energy implementation?
    Mr. Reinke. I think we have already seen this play out. As 
Maria Korsnick rightly pointed out, for the last 30 years, we 
have mostly abdicated our position in global exports of nuclear 
technology, and we also, for the most part, abdicated our 
position in the development of new technologies. So, we have 
seen China and Russia jump ahead of the United States in the 
deployment of technologies in their own countries, as well as 
selling those abroad. Today, that means that we have 
relationships that exist between developing nations often, but 
also others that have been developed already that exist now. 
They have for 20 years with Russia or China. That puts us at a 
geopolitical and geostrategic disadvantage.
    Mr. Nunn. I want to take that one step further, because you 
are absolutely right. What happens in Russia and China to 
undermine this also has an impact on my farmers back in Iowa. 
And while we have wind power, we have water power, coal, and 
natural gas, does this have an impact on everyday Iowans and 
everyday Americans if left unchecked?
    Mr. Reinke. Yes, absolutely, but it also means there is an 
opportunity for your constituents, and I think there is a great 
opportunity for reactor sales here in the United States. We 
were discussing just a little bit ago about what it takes to 
deploy a new reactor. It is not as big of a bite size as what 
we have had to deal with in the past, and I think you are 
beginning to see that play out. In fact, one of the utilities 
that operates in Iowa has put in its Integrated Resource Plan 
(IRP) and two of its other State territories, South Dakota and 
Montana--that would be NorthWestern Energy--a plan for the 
deployment of roughly a 320-megawatt electric small modular 
reactor plant.
    Mr. Nunn. That is excellent. Thank you very much. I yield 
back the remainder of my time, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman's time has expired. 
With that, the gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. Pettersen, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Pettersen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all 
for being here for this very important discussion. We don't 
usually get to talk about nuclear energy here in the Financial 
Services Committee. And this is something that I think about 
often because I have a 4-year-old son. He is turning 4 this 
Friday, and when I think about the future that he is going to 
grow up in, one of the most urgent threats that we face is 
climate change. Nuclear technology is an essential piece of the 
puzzle as we transition to a carbon-free energy grid.
    There are some significant barriers, though. When I talk to 
leading experts who are in the fight on researching 
technologies to address the climate crisis and alternatives, 
when I have asked if nuclear energy will be a key part of this, 
their reluctance is around how costly it is and if we are 
actually going to be able to deploy the necessary investments 
for nuclear energy and meet the needs quickly enough. We want 
to make sure that we are going to be responsible and protect 
our workers and put these safeguards in place, and also, we are 
in a race against time.
    So quickly, what are some considerations that we should 
have, Ms. Korsnick, about labor protections? As you have 
overseen a site, you know what we should be considering if we 
are going to actually fund nuclear investments and what we can 
do to protect workers.
    Ms. Korsnick. Thank you very much for your question. I 
guess I will start by talking about how strong the relationship 
is between the nuclear industry and the labor industry. We have 
very strong support from the labor unions. We have had it since 
the original reactors were built. We continue that relationship 
as they maintain the assets that we have today, and they look 
very forward to continuing to work on the new builds for the 
future. If there was a concern on labor, either how they were 
treated or concerns about safety, we would not have the strong 
labor relationship that we have today. So I would just say, 
rest assured, we have a very strong partnership and that 
partnership continues.
    I will also reflect on several times when the comment has 
come up relative to cost. I would just say, let's look at some 
countries that didn't stop building, and South Korea is a great 
example. They continued building, and as they build, the cost 
continues to come down. The challenge we have in the United 
States is we stopped building for 30 years. You don't stop 
building for 30 years, and then start again, and when you come 
right out of the gate, everything's perfect. It is not. It 
takes time. The DOE report on new reactors, in fact, showed 
about a 50-percent reduction in cost over the 5 to 6 new builds 
of a kind So, I think we need to step back and say the United 
States has proven time and again that we are really good when 
we focus and we build, and the more we build, the better we 
will get.
    Ms. Pettersen. Thank you for addressing that. Another key 
piece, since we are talking about costs and our ability to move 
as quickly as possible, even when we look at housing, so many 
of the barriers that we face are around permits and local 
municipalities. What can we do to help support our local 
communities who might actually need to be a target for 
investment for nuclear technology? And just making sure that we 
are actually investing in modernizing the grid now to make sure 
that we are ready because as we have had an increase in a 
demand to use electric energy, we actually don't have the 
transformers, and we don't have the grid to actually rise to 
the occasion.
    Ms. Korsnick. Yes. Thank you. I guess I will begin by 
saying, as you are pointing out, it is not just the generation 
source, but it is the whole grid that you need to take a look 
at, and you mentioned some of that infrastructure. One of the 
values of adding nuclear to the grid, and the gentleman 
mentioned it earlier--he called it baseload--but we have 
intermittent sources. That is great. We are not trying to say 
that intermittent sources aren't needed or useful, but you do 
need that round-the-clock resource to provide power around the 
clock. And study after study has shown that if you take the 
wind and solar and you add nuclear to that grid, the overall 
cost on that grid comes down. So at the end of the day, the 
customer wins, because they pay a lower price.
    You mentioned the States and permitting, et cetera. I will 
just share that States are incredibly interested in new 
nuclear. If 4 years ago, we would have had 12 bills that had 
anything to do with nuclear power in all of the State 
legislatures, I would have been impressed. Last year, we had 
200 bills about commercial nuclear power. States are trying to 
figure out how to incentivize bringing new nuclear power to 
their States, and that should tell us all something. This isn't 
just a worldwide hunger for nuclear, it is a State hunger right 
here in the United States, and they want to bring it, and they 
want to be part of the whole value chain. We just need to help 
unleash that.
    Ms. Pettersen. Thanks so much. I yield back.
    Chairman Luetkemeyer The gentlelady's time has expired. The 
gentlelady from Texas, Ms. De La Cruz, is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. De La Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 
the witnesses for appearing today.
    According to the Texas Comptroller, in 2022, there were 
1,694 Texas jobs in the nuclear power generation industry, with 
an average wage of $175,140. The industry contributed an 
estimate of $1.4 billion in gross domestic product to the Texas 
economy. When considering nuclear energy jobs outside of the 
utility sector, such as those in manufacturing, construction, 
or professional services, the number of jobs jumps to more than 
3,000. It is incredible. Average wages of $175,000. Those are 
jobs we need to be supporting, and it is in an industry that 
ultimately produces emission-free energy.
    As I was looking at some of the information that was given 
to us here, I was reading a memo, and in our memo, it indicated 
that nuclear energy not only qualifies as a low-carbon source 
of energy, but it also possesses certain advantages over solar 
and wind. Now, the Department of Energy notes nuclear is a key 
source of baseload power that can compensate for the 
intermittence of nature of renewables. In addition, nuclear 
plants are able to run at maximum power more reliably than 
other energy sources, and their typical output means that they 
can produce as much as four renewable energy plants, and it is 
not just reliant on sun and wind only.
    With that being said, Mr. Judson, you had mentioned that 
there are missed opportunities in renewable energy, and your 
remarks lead one to assume that supporting nuclear energy means 
not supporting renewable energy. And as I look at the witnesses 
on the panel today, I see that their portfolios for the 
companies and businesses that they work for include renewable 
energy, and that it is part of their portfolio, and they have 
invested. That being said, I would like to ask you, Mr. Judson, 
you said that, ``We are missing a piece of the pie in renewable 
energy by focusing on nuclear energy.'' Why do you think that 
Russia and China are investing so much in nuclear energy if the 
bigger slice of the pie is in renewable energy?
    Mr. Judson. Sure. What we have seen is actually a fairly 
narrow picture that has been painted. For instance, yes, China 
is investing more in nuclear energy than any other country in 
the world right now, but they are investing far more in 
renewable energy than they are in nuclear, and wind and solar 
are far outpacing----
    Ms. De La Cruz. And I am going to stop you right there. 
That is incorrect information. China, in nuclear energy, is 
assembling more than one-third of the reactors globally. China, 
in renewable energy, has only done $20 billion a year over the 
past 10 years, so that is incorrect information, sir.
    Mr. Judson. I am afraid it isn't, but I can refer you to a 
source that will clarify it.
    Ms. De La Cruz. I would like that, please.
    I will tell you what I believe is happening here. I will 
tell you that by having nuclear energy and putting monies into 
nuclear energy, that is why China is doing it, that is why 
Russia is doing it, because they see and they know that this 
leads to long-term relationships, relationships that last 50 to 
100 years, relationships where other countries can ultimately 
become dependent on them. That is why they are putting money 
and time and effort into nuclear energy. That being said, I 
believe that China and Russia see the opportunity to have world 
energy dominance, and this is important to them. That is why 
they are in this space and focused in this space and not in the 
renewable energy space. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentlelady yields back. The 
gentleman from California, Mr. Vargas, is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Vargas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of 
all, I would say I did read that you are not going to be 
running for reelection. I think that is sad for all of us. You 
have been a very knowledgeable person up here and a very good 
person to work with. Everyone respects you deeply, and we will 
miss you, sir.
    Chairman Luetkemeyer. Thank you.
    Mr. Vargas. I have been here for a while, and one of the 
things that I do remember is the fight we had over EXIM Bank. 
In fact, one of my colleagues on the other side, who chaired 
the committee, was very much against it. In fact, ultimately, 
he had to be rolled to be able to even fund EXIM Bank, and it 
was interesting because it was an ideological fight. I don't 
think it was one that was practical or scientific. It was just 
ideological. In fact, all of the other banks said we really 
need the EXIM Bank if we are going to compete nationally, and 
so here we are. We wasted some time.
    But I bring that up because ideology is interesting. I 
think it has gotten in the way of us looking at climate change 
for the last, at least 2 decades. I know I have been preaching 
the same thing, climate change is here, it is coming, and it 
wasn't until more recently that Mother Nature really made 
herself known with this extreme weather that I think has made 
believers of most of us.
    But I normally don't think that people should get a pass on 
ideology. It should be science with exception, and again, with 
exception, and that is religion. I am very devoutly Christian. 
I can't prove God exists, but I believe very deeply in Him. 
That is just faith. You either believe or you don't, and that 
is the way it is, but everybody else doesn't get a pass. It has 
to be scientific.
    And I say that because, Mr. Judson, you sort of paraded the 
horribles about nuclear. I don't want to put words in your 
mouth, but I think you said that there is safety, there are 
wars, invasions, theft of material, strategic place. To me, 
that was kind of interesting when you were saying where you 
might put them because maybe the enemy wouldn't attack or they 
would, from there, attack because they wouldn't be bombed. But 
anyway, that was all interesting, expensive, and they are puny 
compared to the market they are going to build. I was just in 
Slovakia, and they are going to build them, and if they are 
going to build them, shouldn't we be involved in this? Mr. 
Judson?
    Mr. Judson. Well, no. I actually don't think that we need 
to think about it that way. I think that, sure, Russia and 
China have their reasons for why they are pursuing exporting of 
nuclear reactors. China actually isn't doing it very much. 
Russia is dominating the nuclear export market, but again, it 
is a very small market globally. The development of renewable 
energy and related resources is far, far outpacing that, and 
so, are we going to go to other countries and say, well, we 
will give you a different reactor than what Russia is going to 
give you with their financing package and taking your nuclear 
waste and all of that, whereas with renewable energy, we can 
offer them total energy independence. We can offer them 
affordable energy so that they won't have to rely on another 
country to provide their fuel.
    Mr. Vargas. If I could just push back a little bit because 
again, I am not agnostic personally, but I am agnostic when it 
comes to this, but they are going to build them. They are, and, 
maybe it is not the big solution, but shouldn't we be involved 
in this? I think our safety record is better than the Russians 
and the Chinese.
    Mr. Judson. What I think is that we should be very much 
involved in global energy infrastructure finance, but what the 
world is saying that it needs is not nuclear energy. Countries 
need access to financing for renewable energy right now, and 
this is critical right now.
    Mr. Vargas. Believe me, I am in favor of renewables, I 
think that is the way to go, but they are going to build these 
things.
    Mr. Judson. Sure.
    Mr. Vargas. Just like climate change, ``I don't believe in 
it.'' We don't have to believe in it; it is coming. I don't 
care what you believe, it is coming, and they are going to 
build these reactors. Let me ask somebody else. Isn't that the 
case? They are going to build these. I was just in Slovakia. 
They told me they were going to build them. They are going to 
build them, aren't they?
    Mr. Reinke. Yes, and we hear from customers around the 
world that they want to build them and they are ready to move 
forward with projects. They are looking at the offerings that 
are available today, and many countries are just in the 
beginning phases of changing their policies back to pro-
nuclear, so we have seen that happen as recently as this past 
year in Sweden. Others are moving forward, and as they pivot 
those policies, they are also then looking to try to find out 
how they could develop reactors faster than they have.
    Mr. Vargas. That is one of the things I know when I heard 
that they are small now, but, Mr. Judson, they could become big 
later on. That is the issue, right? Just a few years back, 
renewables were small. Now, they are gigantic. And by the way, 
again, I am very much in favor of renewables. I think that is 
the way to go, and I do think we should invest more until we 
get to this fusion that somehow is going to be the magic bullet 
at the end of the day, or the magic pill, I guess I should say. 
But anyway, my time is up. I have 6 seconds. I thank you very 
much. It has been a great hearing, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
it. Thank you, sir.
    Chairman Luetkemeyer. Thank you. The gentleman from 
California's time has expired, and normally we alternate 
Republican/Democrat, but we are out on our side of the aisle 
other than Mr. Hill, who is not a member of the committee but 
is here today to ask questions, and as a result, he asks last. 
So with that, we go to Mr. Nickel, the last Democrat on the 
dais, to ask questions. He is recognized for 5 minutes, and 
then, we will go to Mr. Hill.
    Mr. Nickel. Thank you very much, Chairman Luetkemeyer, for 
holding this hearing today. Nuclear energy and the export of 
U.S. nuclear energy technology is important for our national 
security, our economic security, and for our climate.
    Let me just take a second here to say this so everybody can 
hear me clearly: 2023 was the hottest year on record. We are in 
a climate crisis, and nuclear energy is a common-sense path 
toward solving it. Additionally, Russia is the world's dominant 
global nuclear supplier. Russia's state-owned nuclear energy 
conglomerate currently has 70 percent of the worldwide export 
market for new reactor construction and an order book 
accounting to $200 billion over the next decade. Chinese 
nuclear industry officials have said that China could build as 
many as 30 nuclear reactors abroad, worth $145.5 billion by 
2023.
    Russia and China both funnel endless resources into nuclear 
exports for geopolitical influence. Meanwhile, U.S. companies 
are competing against foreign governments without meaningful 
support from the Federal Government, and the U.S. just can't 
fall behind, and that is why I am drafting legislation to 
jumpstart nuclear financing at the Export-Import Bank. The 
Export-Import Bank already has the lending authority and 
functional capacity to finance overseas deployment of U.S. 
nuclear technologies. Last year, the Export-Import Bank 
approved $57.2 million in financing to help Romania lay the 
engineering groundwork to build two nuclear reactors.
    My first question is for you, Ms. Korsnick. What role do 
you think the Export-Import Bank could play in financing 
nuclear energy if their default rate limit were raised from 2 
percent to 4 percent, and if civil nuclear facilities were 
included in the China and Transformational Exports Program?
    Ms. Korsnick. I think it would be game-changing. In fact, 
it is one of our recommendations in our written testimony, to 
legislate a permanent increase of EXIM's default rate cap from 
2 percent to 4 percent and to expand the risk tolerance. Again, 
I think you stated it very well. We need to compete against the 
state-owned enterprises. We might not get all the way there, 
but we have to get in the ZIP Code because then they will step 
back and say, okay, now with whom do I want to do business? And 
in that race, the United States will win. The preference will 
be to work with the United States, but we have to get closer in 
what we can offer.
    Mr. Nickel. Thanks so much. Mr. McMurray, my next question 
is for you. Some have argued that financing nuclear energy 
comes at the expense of our climate. I certainly don't agree 
with that, but given that nuclear is a clean energy, what is 
your response to that viewpoint?
    Mr. McMurray. Yes. Thank you, Representative. We are seeing 
a demand for more energy and more clean energy globally, and 
countries are going to want to build whatever options they 
have. It is not renewables versus nuclear. We are going to need 
every clean energy technology we have. And what we can focus on 
is making sure we have the policies in place to support U.S. 
companies to be able to export, and that can focus on at home 
also regarding the financing to make sure that the companies 
have that line of sight to say we are going to build these 
manufacturing facilities, we know we have an order book abroad. 
We can address those policies so they can see that to build the 
facilities here at home, to support building reactors here at 
home, but then also be able to build them internationally as 
well.
    Mr. Nickel. Thanks so much. Ms. Korsnick, back to you. 
Given that Russia and Chinese nuclear enterprises enjoy access 
to state-backed financing, do you agree that the U.S. must work 
to level the playing field, and what are some of the critical 
policy priorities that we need to do to accomplish this?
    Ms. Korsnick. Absolutely we need to level the playing 
field. It was mentioned earlier, but I will just add the 
mandate that EXIM's China and Transformational Exports Program, 
known as CTEP, accept greater loan risk across its portfolio 
and expand its transformational export areas to include civil 
nuclear facilities would be a great step forward. Also, items 
that were listed in the Civil Nuclear Export Act, I think are 
very important and needed, and it is an important step toward 
helping the U.S. gain ground in commercial nuclear 
technologies.
    Mr. Nickel. Thanks so much, and I yield back.
    Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. 
Hill is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you so much 
for letting me waive onto this hearing. I have long been a 
strong supporter of the United States using its sway with 
international financial institutions to promote nuclear energy 
by investing in projects, as they certainly do with renewables 
like solar and wind. Nuclear is the ultimate carbon-friendly, 
baseload, and long-lasting power source. I am a longtime 
supporter of Chairman McHenry's International Nuclear Energy 
Financing Act, which would require the Treasury Secretary to 
overturn a longstanding ban on nuclear assistance at the World 
Bank, which last considered a nuclear plant more than 6 decades 
ago.
    Recently, I was glad to see that the European Bank for 
Reconstruction and Development is finally taking steps to 
revisit its ban on nuclear energy financing, which follows the 
U.S. International Development Finance Corporation in 2020 when 
it relaxed its own nuclear investment ban with bipartisan 
support from Congress.
    Last April, when Speaker McCarthy and a group of us were in 
Romania and in Poland, we certainly heard an earful about the 
need to expand their nuclear opportunities, and also, drill in 
the Black Sea on their natural gas reserves, which they have 
bought from the Austrians. And these are the kinds of things, 
in a middle-income country like that, where we need the IFIs to 
be fully participant in a long-term energy way. But yesterday, 
I got a call from the energy policy leader in Romania, who told 
me that they had agreed to go forward with a nuclear project in 
their country, and I think that is a really positive 
development.
    I wish we had more projects ongoing, but let me start with 
Mr. McMurray. Have we seen progress with the DFC's decision 
since 2020?
    Mr. McMurray. Yes, we have seen progress. DFC lifted their 
moratorium recently in Poland by supporting the GE Hitachi 
small modular reactors there, as well as in Romania for the 
NuScale technologies. It is very exciting to see this, and 
something to keep in mind is that next year, DFC will be 
reauthorized, so how to kind of strengthen that unique equity 
function that it has to make sure it has the right expertise, 
it can support the right projects, and it is not limited by any 
other financing abilities for building larger projects is a big 
opportunity.
    Mr. Hill. Yes, I think that is good, and I think, 
obviously, the Germans and the Japanese and the Americans have 
such an ability to do a major consortium here. Is there 
anything else our national labs can do to streamline the small 
modular nuclear design issue, or do you feel like there is a 
template there that is perfectly fine and that we can press 
forward with that from a sales point of view for U.S. 
technology?
    Mr. McMurray. Yes. The U.S. national labs are a true 
treasure to really improve that competitive advantage of the 
United States.
    Mr. Hill. Yes.
    Mr. McMurray. The research that they do, the public-private 
partnerships that they have really makes the U.S. industry very 
competitive in being innovative and developing these new 
technologies. Broadening that to the international side, we can 
actually equate this to LNG, where the DOE public-private 
partnerships in hydraulic fracking have really allowed the LNG 
industry to take off. The nuclear industry can do the same 
thing, and that is also where we can leverage our internal 
expertise at the Department of Energy and our national labs to 
help countries learn about these technologies, and to get 
comfortable with these technologies so we can export them.
    Mr. Hill. According to the Atlantic Council, the 2 
countries that built 60 percent of new nuclear plants since 
2019, I think, are Russia and India. Do you think that these 
steps on financing plus the small modular nuclear design 
element are going to allow Western countries like the United 
States to catch up and start taking market share there?
    Mr. McMurray. Yes. I think we have a variety of 
technologies, both large reactors----
    Mr. Hill. And I think financing is a big piece.
    Mr. McMurray. Yes.
    Mr. Hill. President El-Sisi told us that the reason they 
went Russian was purely based on the four-reactor package where 
they didn't pay a nickel until the fourth reactor was up and 
running, and then the payout was pretty long. I don't know if 
that technology is superior or not. Does anybody want to 
address that?
    Mr. McMurray. I would say financing is critical, and making 
sure that we can offer competitive financing needs to happen 
to----
    Mr. Hill. Who has a suggestion on how we could make the 
financing even more competitive to benefit American 
manufacturing?
    Mr. Reinke. I would weigh in that the first thing that 
could be done is to help the World Bank and the other 
multilateral institutions lift their moratorium. When they say 
no to nuclear, it has an influence in trickling down throughout 
the banking system, so many institutions don't have the 
technical capacity to evaluate a project from scratch.
    Mr. Hill. Yes.
    Mr. Reinke. They have to bring that in, and what they will 
do first is look to an international bank, like the World Bank, 
to try to determine whether or not there is risk, and that is a 
policy decision that was made there.
    Mr. Hill. Thank you very much. I am glad we have bipartisan 
support for this. I think it is critical. I think if we are 
serious about climate, then we need to be serious about 
nuclear. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman yields back. With that, 
we go to the gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Kim, who is also 
the Vice Chair of this subcommittee, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Kim. Thank you, Chairman Luetkemeyer, and I want to 
also thank the ranking member for organizing this hearing, and 
thank you, witnesses, for being with us today. I want to start 
by asking each of you a very quick question. Would you rather 
live in a world where the U.S. and our allies are financing 
nuclear projects or in a world where Russia and China are 
unilaterally providing lending for nuclear projects?
    Ms. Korsnick. I will pick the first answer.
    Mr. McMurray. Yes, the United States.
    Mr. Reinke. Me, too.
    Mr. Judson. The second answer.
    Mrs. Kim. When U.S. leadership and influence is absent, 
China and Russia do not hesitate to fill in the vacuum. 
Unfortunately, U.S. leadership had been absent for way too long 
in advocating for financing of nuclear projects. While long 
overdue, I must applaud the Biden Administration's recent 
decision to encourage the World Bank and other institutions to 
support nuclear financing. We must support an all-of-the-above 
energy strategy.
    I do want to ask a question. The International Atomic 
Energy Agency (IAEA) has called nuclear power plants among the 
safest and most secure facilities in the world, and one 
analysis of the fossil fuels and low-carbon energy sources 
showed that the risks to human life from accidents and air 
pollution were so small with nuclear power, that they were 
comparable to renewables.
    So, Ms. Korsnick, and Dr. Reinke, could you help us 
understand, from an engineering perspective, what makes nuclear 
so much less of a risk to human health than other energy 
sources?
    Ms. Korsnick. I will start, Ben, and then I will hand it 
off to you. Basically, to start with, there are no emissions 
from a nuclear power plant, and when we say carbon dioxide, 
there are no carbon dioxide emissions, but also no nitrous 
oxides, no sulfur oxides, and those are some things that are 
pollutants that damage the environment, but they are also 
damaging to our health, and none of those emissions occur with 
the operation of nuclear power. You also get a lot of energy 
from a small amount of resources in nuclear power, and you get 
that round-the-clock reliable energy.
    Mr. Reinke. I also want to say that nuclear, broadly, has 
adopted safety as its single most important cultural trait. In 
the United States, safety is paramount. It is the number-one 
thing that all nuclear operators focus on. It is the number-one 
thing we focus on at X-energy as well. We have designed a 
reactor that is even safer than what we have today, and the 
reason we care to do that, despite the incredible safety case 
of today's reactors, is that it makes the reactor design 
simpler. You can get rid of a lot of things that you would 
build in and engineer to make sure that a reactor stays safe 
under all conditions, and that simpler design is then more 
economic. And that is why we are bringing a new technology to 
market.
    The last thing to say is that we have done an analysis 
internally as well, trying to look at the overall lifecycle 
emissions for our plants versus what we do, and we use the 
Argonne National Lab model, which is the standard for the 
Department of Energy. Typically, that model spits out an answer 
that is exactly what you said, which is that nuclear is 
comparable to renewables, and I believe there is only one type 
of renewable facility that would be, on a per-megawatt-hour 
basis, actually less than nuclear power. When we have run that 
model for our reactors, we actually come out lower than that 
even.
    Mrs. Kim. Thank you. Mr. McMurray, as you discussed in your 
testimony, the U.S. and over 20 allies pledged to triple global 
nuclear energy capacity from 2020 levels to 2050. That would be 
an unprecedented growth, with more than 14 new 1,000-megawatt 
reactors every year starting in 2030. The U.S. and countries in 
Europe haven't deployed even close to that pace in recent 
decades, and some of the countries that made this pledge do not 
even have nuclear reactors at all. So how important is 
financing to reaching these levels of deployment, and how can 
we, the U.S. and IFIs, play a role?
    Mr. McMurray. Thank you, Representative. And thank you for 
your support for geothermal permitting reform. It is a great 
question. The U.S. has to lead in this, and it has the industry 
to do that. It has the technical expertise and the regulatory 
expertise to be able to make that happen. It also has the 
ability to support the financing between EXIM and DFC, but it 
is also where the World Bank removing its moratorium is 
necessary. The World Bank is one of the few entities that can 
support these large global infrastructure projects, and there 
are things that the World Bank can do. It can create a trust 
fund, which is actually a well-known thing at the World Bank. 
About two-thirds of its analytical services are funded by 
these, and that can solve----
    Mrs. Kim. According to the World Bank, around half of Sub-
Saharan Africa still lacks access to electricity. So is it 
realistic to expect Africa to obtain 100-percent access to 
clean electricity unless we expend nuclear energy on the 
continent?
    Mr. McMurray. Thank you. This is an area of the world that 
wants more energy and it wants clean energy, and that is where 
you see China and Russia also looking at deploying their 
technologies there. That is an area where the U.S. has to be 
able to compete. Otherwise, these countries are going to look 
for those sources of financing that is available, and right 
now, that is China and Russia.
    Mrs. Kim. Thank you. My time is up. I yield back.
    Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentlelady's time has expired. 
With that, all of my colleagues today have asked all of the 
questions we need to ask, hopefully, and we have some great 
answers from all of you. We thank you for your testimony today.
    One housekeeping item here. I would ask for unanimous 
consent to enter two articles from Foreign Policy Magazine to 
the record, which argue that our current approach to green 
finance in Africa is only harming the poor. These articles are 
entitled, ``Why False Energy Hopes Are Bad for Africa,'' and, 
``The Dark Side of Climate Finance.''
    Without objection, it is so ordered.
    Just one question for you before we leave here. Mr. Foster 
and I were talking a little bit ago when he was saying if a 
bomb should hit one of the plants that have these little 
modules, ceramic modules or whatever you call them, would they 
destroy those modules or would they just be blown to pieces, 
and you would just have to go collect all the round objects 
around?
    Mr. Reinke. It is a great question. The easiest way to 
answer this is that we have also worked on a design for the 
U.S. Department of Defense, a mobile micro reactor that was 
part of Project Pele, and we are funded to do work for them 
today. When DOD had originally envisioned the program, they 
required that all applicants use a TRISO fuel because they knew 
that if they put it in harm's way, it would be the safest 
nuclear fuel that you could have deployed.
    We are designing our reactors to U.S. standards today, and 
typically, the U.S. fleet has to be able to take, post-9/11, 
under a rule from the NRC, a direct impact from a 747 fully 
loaded with jet fuel, so all reactors are incredibly robust. 
And that is true, period, but with our fuel, if the pebbles 
were to leak out of the reactor after some sort of catastrophic 
accident, they retain that integrity. And under tests in the 
past, even if you were able to break a spear, one of those 
pebbles, in half, the individual TRISO particles are retained, 
and they are bonded to the graphite matrix. When people have 
done crush tests that are extremely robust, at the end of the 
crush test on the outside, you end up with two spheres, 
hemispheres, with the fuel bonded on the inside.
    Chairman Luetkemeyer. Very good. Question?
    Mr. Foster. Oh, just pretty much, you answered what was 
going to be my question there. Another advantage that the TRISO 
approach has is you don't vent the long-lived radionuclides. 
One of the problems with conventional nuclear fuel is that if a 
jetliner lands on it or something like this, there is a lot of 
stored, long-lived volatile radionuclides sitting around that 
are also in your fuel, but since they are contained in little, 
tiny internal microspheres or whatever, then they actually 
don't come out, and that is a non-trivial advantage, along with 
the fact that helium as a coolant has three big advantages: 
first, it is noncorrosive; second, it doesn't corrode; and 
third, it doesn't corrode stuff by itself. Just having done 
helium designs and other designs, that is a huge deal.
    Mr. Reinke. Yes.
    Chairman Luetkemeyer. So, in layman's language----
    [laughter]
    Chairman Luetkemeyer. ----what you are saying is that the 
new models, the new designs are such that you really don't have 
a problem if there is some sort of an explosion or some sort of 
accident, that they are designed so that there are going to be 
very, very minimal, if any problems. Is that what you are 
saying?
    Mr. Reinke. That is right, and when we design the reactors, 
we take that design from the fuel out, and you make sure that 
you design a reactor so that under any accident scenario, even 
if you were to have a huge leak of all the helium at one 
moment, that safety case is such that the heat can dissipate, 
and it continues to dissipate from that hot radioactive fuel on 
the inside to the surrounding environment in perpetuity without 
any human intervention.
    Mr. Foster. Wow.
    Mr. Reinke. And that is the key.
    Mr. Foster. What it means operationally is that a terrorist 
could take over the control room, and there is not much they 
could do to make a Chernobyl-style accident.
    Mr. Reinke. There are only four operations in our reactor, 
so it is the most boring job in the world to be a nuclear 
operator at our reactors. And if you would like, we can show 
you our control room simulator where you can play with the 
controls and try to run the reactor up and down in power, but 
there really are only four actions that are even physically 
possible with the reactor.
    Chairman Luetkemeyer. Very good. I thank all of the 
witnesses today.
    The Chair notes that some Members may have additional 
questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in 
writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open 
for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions 
to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. 
Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days 
to submit extraneous materials to the Chair for inclusion in 
the record.
    With that, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:02 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
    
    GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

                            A P P E N D I X



                            January 17, 2024`