The US Department of Energy (DOE) has issued a Request for Information (RFI) inviting states to express interest in hosting Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses, to modernise the full nuclear fuel cycle and strengthen America’s leadership in advanced nuclear energy.
This is the first step towards potentially establishing voluntary Federal-State partnerships designed to advance regional economic growth, enhance national energy security, and build a coherent, end-to-end nuclear energy strategy.
“Unleashing the next American nuclear renaissance will drive innovation, fuel economic growth, and create good-paying American jobs while delivering the affordable, reliable and secure energy America needs to power its future,” said Energy Secretary Chris Wright. “Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses give us the opportunity to work directly with states on regional priorities that support President Trump’s vision to revitalise America’s nuclear base.”
The proposed campuses could support activities across the full nuclear fuel lifecycle, including fuel fabrication, enrichment, reprocessing used nuclear fuel, and disposition of waste. Depending on state priorities and regional capabilities, the sites could also host advanced reactor deployment, power generation, advanced manufacturing, and co-located data centres.
Submissions should outline state priorities – such as workforce development, infrastructure investment, economic diversification, or technology leadership – and describe the scope of activities the state envisions hosting. States are also encouraged to identify the funding structures, risk sharing approaches, incentives and federal partnerships required to successfully establish and sustain a full-cycle Innovation Campus. Responses to the RFI are requested by 1 April.
The funding for the campuses is designed as a hybrid model that prioritises private and state capital over open-ended federal spending. DOE estimates that individual campuses could attract up to $50bn in private capital investment, largely driven by the high power demands of data centres and AI companies looking for reliable, carbon-free baseload energy.
Any federal funding will be conditional, time-limited, and subject to Congressional appropriations with DOE specifically seeking to avoid “open-ended liabilities” for taxpayers. DOE is asking states to propose their own funding structures, risk-sharing approaches, and local incentives to sustain the campuses long-term.
DOE leadership has indicated that a significant portion of the department’s loan authority will be directed toward building the nuclear plants and infrastructure associated with these types of initiatives. DOE is effectively looking for states to act as “business partners” who can contribute their own financial assets in exchange for becoming a hub of a projected multi-billion-dollar domestic industry.
States are asked to outline funding structures and risk-sharing approaches they could provide to sustain a full-cycle campus. This includes offering streamlined regulatory support for environmental compliance and fast-tracking local permitting processes for nuclear facilities. States are expected to propose workforce development programmes to train the local labour pool for high-paying roles in nuclear enrichment, reprocessing, and advanced manufacturing.
Possible incentives include providing land use agreements, site selection assistance, and direct infrastructure investment to support the campus’s power and logistics needs. States are expected to explain how the campus fits into their broader economic growth strategies, potentially involving local tax breaks or grants for co-located industries like data centres. They must demonstrate a plan for community agreements and public engagement to ensure long-term local support for hosting nuclear waste and fuel facilities.
Neutron Bytes points out that the RFI is not a request for proposals but a preliminary step in that direction. “What DOE is doing, in advertising terms, is floating a trial balloon to assess interest in what could become a request for proposal.”
It says: “The government will need to bring cash to party, barrels of it, if it wants states to host some of these sites. It is also likely that any states that seek to sign up for these roles will also bring with them public-private partnerships or consortiums with major nuclear energy engineering, technical services, and EPC firms to provide the necessary technical expertise involved in preparing and submitting proposals and, if they win a ‘host role’, managing their respective roles.”
According to Neutron Bytes, the government has not addressed a number of critical questions about the terms and conditions of the proposed programme as described in the RFI. These are:
- How much money will the government put on the table to pay for these nuclear lifecycle campuses?
- How will the government be responsible for implementing controls for all the nuclear fissile materials that will be managed at these sites? The going in assumption is that like the DOE’s cleanup programme, government funded contractors will do the work subject to DOE funding and oversight.
- Can states cherry pick which elements of the nuclear lifecycle they want to host. It is unlikely that any state will want to host all of the types of facilities involved in the programme. “There is a better than even chance, dollars to donuts, that states will tell DOE they reject its all or none policy.”
- What about nuclear safety for all types of facilities needed to complete the nuclear fuel cycle? “Given the government’s recently reported actions of secretly changing nuclear safety requirements for development and approval of small modular and microreactors, the agency’s credibility about keeping its promises for nuclear safety is going to be a key issue for states considering signing up to host any parts of this programme.”
