People want an all-of-the-above energy approach that delivers affordable, abundant, and increasingly clean energy . Importantly, they’ve realized nuclear power is at the heart of this approach.

Indeed, according to a new Gallup poll, a majority of Americans have realized that nuclear energy is safe, reliable, and clean. In the highest level of support seen in a decade, 55% of people favor the use of nuclear energy, up 4 percentage points from last year.

This comes at a time when Republicans and the Biden administration are championing the development of next-generation nuclear energy. Additionally, think tanks and advocacy groups across the ideological spectrum have rightfully pointed out the benefits of nuclear energy for both energy security and climate action. Just last week, Oscar-winning director Oliver Stone released a new film, Nuclear Now , advocating the expansion of nuclear energy across the world to combat climate change.

There’s a problem, though. Miles of red tape and bloated bureaucracy are preventing us from capitalizing on this increasing support.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has long been criticized for its costly and burdensome processes. In the past, antinuclear advocates have used public fear as a justification for slow-walking the approval of new plants. Worry and fear around radiation and dangers associated with nuclear energy ruled the conversation, but we now know those fears are unfounded. With popular support growing, the NRC must prioritize building our nuclear future. In fact, the closer people live to a nuclear plant, the more in favor of nuclear energy they are. "Not-in-my-backyard" sentiment represents the minority, and the NRC cannot be ruled by it.

With the increased popularity of nuclear energy and the development of small modular reactors, or SMRs, the NRC’s inefficiencies have been thrust into the spotlight. Currently, there’s not even a clear, established regulatory framework for the approval of these SMRs, which experts agree must be a large part of our clean energy future. The first SMR design was certified earlier this year using the old process for traditional nuclear plants, but it took hundreds of millions of dollars and nearly a decade. As of right now, there’s no clear path for others to follow. If we’re serious about capitalizing on the power of American innovation, the NRC must get out of its own way.

There are nearly endless possibilities for the future of the nuclear industry if only we could act on them. SMRs are smaller and, in theory, cheaper to construct than traditional reactors. However, the regulatory costs, both monetary and temporal, are stalling crucial emissions reductions and reliable energy on the grid.

It’s clear that the NRC must change if we are to build our clean energy future. To start, we must stop trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. There must be a clear and separate permitting track for next-generation nuclear to reflect its differences from traditional reactors. The NRC should also reform its fee structure to make permitting a more accessible process for innovative companies pushing our energy industry forward. Furthermore, rather than a prescriptive regulatory framework, the NRC should adopt a performance-based framework that would allow for more flexibility and innovation by companies while maintaining high safety standards.

Put simply, the NRC must reflect the change in American attitudes toward nuclear energy. It’s obvious the tides are changing. From the activism to keep Diablo Canyon open last year to this recent polling, it’s clear that people want more clean, reliable nuclear energy on the grid. The NRC shouldn’t stand in our way.

Christopher Barnard ( @ChrisBarnardDL ) is the vice president of external affairs at the American Conservation Coalition.