DAE, Power Ministry at odds over civil nuclear projects’ supervision

Why in the News?

India’s civil nuclear sector is undergoing a structural transition after the passage of the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act, 2025, which for the first time permits private participation in a strategically controlled domain. This shift has triggered a sharp institutional divergence between the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) and the Ministry of Power over supervisory control. This exposes concerns of conflict of interest arising from DAE’s end-to-end dominance of the nuclear supply chain. The issue assumes significance as India plans to expand nuclear capacity from 8.7 gigawatt electric (GWe) to 100 GWe by 2047. This makes regulatory clarity essential for energy security and climate commitments.

What is the SHANTI Act and how does it transform India’s nuclear sector?

1. Legislative Reform: Establishes a legal framework enabling private sector participation in civil nuclear energy, breaking the exclusive state control under the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE).
2. Regulatory Strengthening: Grants statutory status to the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), thereby enhancing its legal authority and institutional autonomy.
3. Administrative Reconfiguration: Recognises DAE as the nodal technical authority while opening space for other ministries to play administrative roles.
4. Investment Facilitation: Removes key barriers for private investment, including easing operational restrictions in nuclear power generation.
5. Liability Modification: Omits the supplier liability clause present earlier, reducing long-term liability risks for equipment vendors and encouraging foreign and domestic participation.

Why has the SHANTI Act triggered institutional conflict between the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) and Ministry of Power?

1. Jurisdictional Ambiguity: Creates overlap between DAE’s technical authority and Ministry of Power’s administrative jurisdiction over electricity generation.
2. Shift in Sectoral Control: Challenges the traditional monopoly of DAE by introducing multi-agency governance in nuclear power.
3. Private Sector Inclusion: Raises the question of whether private nuclear projects should fall under the broader power sector administered by the Ministry of Power.
4. Policy Divergence: Reflects differing institutional perspectives on whether nuclear energy should remain a strategic domain or be integrated with commercial energy markets.
5. Lack of Clear Framework: Absence of a clearly defined administrative structure for private projects has intensified inter-ministerial tensions.

How does the Department of Atomic Energy’s (DAE) structure raise concerns of conflict of interest?

1. End-to-End Control: Exercises authority over research, reactor development, fuel supply, plant operations, and waste management, creating concentration of power.
2. Regulatory Dependence: Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) historically relied on DAE for budgetary and administrative support, limiting independence.
3. Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) Observation (2012): Highlighted institutional conflict as AERB leadership reported to the Atomic Energy Commission, closely linked to DAE.
4. Dual Role Issue: DAE functions both as operator and overseer, leading to potential regulatory capture.
5. Accountability Deficit: Weak separation between promoter and regulator reduces transparency and credibility in safety oversight.

What institutional changes have been introduced to address regulatory concerns?

1. Statutory Empowerment: Converts Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) into a statutory body, enhancing legal independence.
2. Expanded Oversight: Strengthens regulatory jurisdiction over nuclear power plants, including those developed by private entities.
3. Defined Technical Authority: Retains Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) as nodal agency for technical expertise and institutional knowledge.
4. Separation Attempt: Initiates partial separation between regulatory and operational functions to reduce conflict of interest.
5. Governance Modernisation: Aligns India’s nuclear governance structure with international best practices of independent regulation.

Should the Ministry of Power be given administrative control over private nuclear projects?

1. Sectoral Integration: Aligns nuclear power with broader electricity sector planning under the Ministry of Power.
2. Technology-Based Allocation: Suggests division where Light Water Reactors (LWR) and Pressurised Water Reactors (PWR) fall under Ministry of Power, while Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWR) remain under DAE.
3. Efficiency Consideration: Enhances administrative efficiency by integrating nuclear energy with grid management and distribution systems.
4. Expertise Constraint: Recognises DAE’s specialised knowledge in nuclear technology, limiting full transfer of control.
5. Hybrid Governance Model: Indicates a possible dual framework combining technical oversight by DAE and administrative supervision by the Ministry of Power.

What are the strategic and capacity implications of expanding nuclear energy in India?

1. Current Capacity: India’s installed nuclear capacity stands at approximately 8.7 gigawatt electric (GWe), constituting about 1.65% of total installed capacity.
2. Under Construction Projects: Around 6,600 megawatt electric (MWe) capacity is currently under construction.
3. Pipeline Projects: Additional 7,000 MWe capacity is in planning and approval stages.
4. Long-Term Target: Aims to achieve 100 GWe nuclear capacity by 2047 to support energy transition goals.
5. Role of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL): Expected to develop more than half of the targeted capacity expansion.

Why does the government retain control over critical nuclear activities despite private participation?

1. Strategic Sensitivity: Nuclear energy is closely linked to national security and non-proliferation commitments.
2. Fuel Cycle Control: Retains authority over enrichment, isotopic separation, and reprocessing of spent fuel.
3. Waste Management: Ensures safe handling and disposal of high-level radioactive waste under government supervision.
4. Heavy Water Production: Maintains control over heavy water, a critical input for indigenous reactor technology.
5. International Obligations: Aligns with global nuclear safety norms and safeguards under international agreements.

Conclusion

The SHANTI Act introduces a structural transformation in India’s nuclear sector but simultaneously exposes institutional gaps in governance. Establishing a clear separation between regulatory and operational roles, along with a coherent administrative framework, remains essential for achieving safe and scalable nuclear expansion.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2018] With growing energy needs should India keep on expanding its nuclear energy programme? Discuss the facts and fears associated with nuclear energy.

Linkage: The PYQ directly links to nuclear expansion targets (100 GWe by 2047) and policy shift towards private participation under SHANTI Act. It captures core debate of governance, safety, regulatory independence, and strategic control highlighted in the DAE vs Ministry of Power conflict.