In the heart of the American Southwest, a startup named Deep Fission is digging deep—literally. The company is pioneering an unconventional approach to nuclear energy, burying reactors a mile underground to leverage the Earth’s natural containment. This radical strategy aims to enhance safety and slash costs, but it’s not just about the technology. Deep Fission is also digging in its heels against what it sees as an outdated regulatory regime, one that could stifle the very innovation it seeks to foster.
The company’s CEO and co-founder, Liz Muller, doesn’t mince words. “We believe in regulation,” she states, “We also believe in common sense.” That’s why Deep Fission has joined forces with several states and fellow reactor developers to sue the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), aiming to modernize its licensing process. This isn’t about dodging oversight, Muller insists. It’s about clearing the path for the energy the country desperately needs.
The stakes are high. The U.S. is on the cusp of an energy demand surge, driven by data centers, AI, re-industrialization, and large-scale electrification. Estimates suggest that U.S. electricity demand could skyrocket in the next 15 years, a challenge that our current grid—and regulatory framework—may not be equipped to handle.
Despite significant investment in advanced nuclear, not a single advanced reactor is commercially operating in the U.S. The most recent plant to come online, Plant Vogtle’s Units 3 and 4, took 15 years and cost over $35 billion—far exceeding initial projections. This pace and price point, Muller argues, is unsustainable.
The crux of the issue lies in the NRC’s licensing process, which Muller describes as slow, expensive, and ill-suited for modern, modular reactors. “When the process itself becomes the bottleneck,” she warns, “then something’s broken.” And it’s not just a bureaucratic problem; it’s a national security issue.
Deep Fission’s underground reactors, Muller contends, are fundamentally different. By design, they mitigate many traditional nuclear risks. What they’re asking for isn’t an exemption from safety standards, but a regulatory framework that acknowledges technological progress and allows low-risk systems to move swiftly and efficiently through the process.
Other countries are already moving fast, Muller points out. If the U.S. wants to stay competitive—to power AI, industry, and a low-carbon future—it needs to get serious about deployment. That means fixing broken systems and rethinking regulation to support innovation without compromising safety.
The lawsuit filed by Deep Fission and its allies is a bold move, a challenge to the status quo. It’s a call to action, a demand for a smarter, more adaptive approach to regulation. It’s a bet that the U.S. can still lead in nuclear power, that it can meet the moment with clean, safe, affordable energy.
But it’s also a gamble. The outcome of this lawsuit could shape the future of nuclear energy in the U.S. It could accelerate the deployment of advanced reactors, or it could entrench the existing regulatory regime. It could position the U.S. as a leader in clean energy, or it could leave it playing catch-up. The stakes are high, the debate is heated, and the future is uncertain. But one thing is clear: the nuclear energy sector is on the brink of significant change.
