California Assembly Bill AB1757

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/9/26
• Refer: 3/16/26
• Report Pass: 3/16/26
• Refer: 3/17/26

Caption

An act to amend Section Sections 25524.1 and 25524.2 of the Public Resources Code, relating to energy.

Summary

AB 1757 would amend two provisions of the Public Resources Code governing when nuclear fission thermal powerplants may be permitted or certified in California. The bill adds an explicit exemption for “nuclear microreactors,” defined as small modular nuclear fission reactors with a rated electrical output of no more than 20 megawatts per unit, factory-assembled and highly portable, and licensed or eligible for licensing by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or authorized by the U.S. Department of Energy or Department of Defense. The measure leaves in place the existing restrictions on larger nuclear fission thermal powerplants, including the requirements tied to fuel rod reprocessing capability and demonstrated high-level nuclear waste disposal technology. It also preserves the existing exceptions for Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 and San Onofre Units 2 and 3. The bill is framed largely as a targeted carveout rather than a broad rewrite of California’s nuclear siting rules.

Impact

If enacted, AB 1757 would narrow the reach of California’s nuclear facility siting restrictions by excluding nuclear microreactors from the statutory prohibitions and certification conditions in Public Resources Code Sections 25524.1 and 25524.2. That would make microreactors eligible for permitting and certification without having to satisfy the same fuel reprocessing and high-level waste disposal prerequisites that apply to larger nuclear fission thermal powerplants. The bill would therefore affect the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission’s review authority, as well as developers, utilities, and public agencies considering small-scale nuclear projects in California.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been introduced in a generally favorable posture toward expanding the state’s ability to consider advanced nuclear technology, especially small modular or microreactor designs. However, the committee vote history shows limited support at the first hearing, with the measure failing passage on a 4-9 vote after being set for hearing and reconsideration being granted. That suggests the concept had some backing but did not yet command a majority in committee.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the policy question of whether California should create a special exemption for nuclear microreactors while retaining strict limits on other nuclear plants. Supporters would view the bill as a way to encourage newer, smaller nuclear technologies that may have different safety, land-use, and deployment characteristics than traditional reactors. Opponents may be concerned that even a limited exemption could weaken longstanding nuclear siting restrictions, raise unresolved waste and safety issues, or open the door to broader nuclear development. The committee vote indicates those concerns outweighed support at the first hearing.