The State of Fusion Energy Regulations: A Bright Spot for Future Progress!

One of the advantages that fusion energy enjoys versus nuclear fission is its significantly simplified regulatory environment. Nuclear fission, due to events like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, has seen both regulatory regimes and public perception focus that are very wary of its use. This is driven not only by the events above, but concerns about the management of long-term nuclear waste, how to make nuclear fission plants significantly safer, and how to minimize the likelihood of catastrophic nuclear fission reactor meltdowns.

Fusion energy on the other hand has several advantages over nuclear fission energy, which has had a significant impact on fusion energy regulation. Some of these advantages include:

• Fusion energy machines can’t melt down. There is not the possibility of chain reactions like fission has. Indeed, fusion plasmas extinguish themselves if their containment mechanism fails.
• Fusion energy doesn’t produce long-term radioactive waste. Fusion energy only generates short-lived isotopes and short-lived neutron-activated materials. This compares with fission, which generates radioactive materials that can last for hundreds of thousands of years.
• Fusion energy uses non-weaponizable fuel such deuterium and lithium. Both are relatively abundant, and neither are fissile, ensuring a secure and peaceful energy source. Even tritium, the only radioactive fuel in (some) fusion energy approaches, has a very short half-life.

This safety profile is why the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) treats fusion under “byproduct material” rules, essentially regulating these fusion energy machines in the same way that particle accelerators are regulated.

Public Perception Differences: Not in My Backyard?

Because of events such as Three Mile Island, Fukushima, and Chernobyl, the siting of fission energy plants has become a bramble bush that few politicians want to get into. While the Trump administration and the current leadership of the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) are very supportive of nuclear fission, the receptiveness towards siting nuclear fission plants in most states and urban areas has generally been negative. While the U.S. has the largest fleet of nuclear power plants in the world (though China is expected to surpass the U.S. in the next few years), no new nuclear power plant has been permitted in the past ten years. This is in spite of the fact that twelve (12) U.S. nuclear power reactors have been shuttered since 2012. To be fair, new reactor designs, especially Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), have the potential to change this direction, though none have been commercially deployed yet. Today, the most advanced user of nuclear fission power has been the U.S. Navy.

In contrast, the public perception of fusion energy is generally positive, but is still developing because the “public-industrial” interface for fusion energy is still largely in its infancy. This lack of experience in the zoning of fusion plants presents some potential challenges to the future growth of fusion energy. The complex environment for permitting any electrical power plants, and the lengthy process leading to grid interconnection can further impact the deployment of fusion energy in the future.

The Road Map for Fusion Energy Regulation

Luckily for fusion energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has taken a forward-looking leadership role in crafting regulations for fusion energy. The NRC is in the process of developing comprehensive fusion-specific regulations, which are expected to be completed by May 2025, that will regulate fusion facilities under a “byproduct material” framework distinct from that of fission reactors. Here are some of the highlights of this new regulatory framework:

NRC and State Roles

• The NRC approach: Looks at fusion “byproduct materials” focusing on regulating the use, handling, and disposal, tritium and neutron-activated materials, and not on the fusion energy machines themselves.
• Streamlined Licensing: The NRC is considering a design-specific licensing model, which could allow pre-approved reactor blueprints and reduce regulatory barriers for new entrants.
• State Involvement: Under the Agreement States Program, 39 states have the authority to regulate fusion facilities, creating a patchwork of local regulations that companies must navigate alongside federal rules.

Nonproliferation, Safety, and Waste Management

• Nonproliferation: While fusion energy poses a lower proliferation risk than fission, the DOE and NNSA are developing a right-sized nonproliferation framework, focusing on tritium management and knowledge transfer risks.

• Waste Management: Fusion waste is expected to be lower in volume and radioactivity than fission waste, but DOE is initiating early planning for waste minimization, recycling, and disposal pathways.

•  Environmental and Safety Standards: Regulatory development is risk-informed, focusing on actual hazards rather than prescriptive rules, and includes early planning for decommissioning and environmental protection.

More importantly, these regulations should provide a framework for state/local regulatory regimes. Here is how fusion energy pundits see these new regulatory frameworks rolling out:

• 2025-2027: The “Regulatory Gold Rush” – NRC’s rules will trigger a wave of state-level adaptations. Agile companies will target states with pre-existing fusion expertise (e.g., Massachusetts, Washington State, Virginia, New York, California, and Texas).
• 2030s: The International Standards Era – As pilots come online, bodies like the IAEA will create global fusion codes, easing cross-border projects.
• 2040s: Fusion as a Commodity – Standardized reactors could receive “pre-certification,” similar to today’s combined-cycle gas turbines.

Similar steps are being taken in other countries such as those of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Agency (UK-AEA). Specifically, the U.S. is leading efforts to harmonize fusion regulations with the UK, Japan, and the EU, and is active in international bodies like the IAEA and ITER. This global alignment is intended to facilitate cross-border investment and technology transfer. The U.S. DoE is also working on managing export-control frameworks and strategies to protect U.S. intellectual property as fusion moves toward commercialization.

Summary: Regulation as the Catalyst for Fusion Energy’s Growth

Separating fusion from fission from a regulatory standpoint lowers the capital costs and enables faster deployment of fusion energy. This distinction also fosters public trust, which is critical for siting and scaling, while aligning global standards (via IAEA/EU collaborations) to unlock cross-border supply chains. Ultimately, regulatory differentiation positions fusion energy as a standalone energy sector, accelerating its path to commercialization and market dominance over fossil fuels and fission.