I am proposing that the world needs a market structure and rules (same as architecture and design) that allows competition in generation, competition in retail, and competition between generation and retail. Since both deregulation and vertical integration should be ruled out, so far the only available option is Electricity Without Price Controls (EWPC), as explained in the post Solving the Tough Electric Power Market Problem.
While the Senate Bill ... does not otherwise provide incentives for nuclear power, the author and EPRI are forecasting 5 and 4 units per year, respectively, from 2015 to 2030.
As I have said earlier, I am not against, nor favor, nuclear power. Public policy should not pick winners, as they don't do it in other industries. Now here is a report against it: New nuclear power said too costly and risky. I have seen many comments in energypulse.net that show the contrary. To me the solution is to implement a carbon tax and leave it to the market to make the decision, and allow private investors to receive the benefits and to take the risks. That would end that debate.
The same applies to renewables. Most renewables want the repeat of PURPA to avoid competition. Both nuclear and renewables should just compete with gas on the supply side and with energy efficiency, demand response, distributed storage, etc, on the demand side (see first link). By the way, the author didn't take into account the benefits of demand response on CO2 reduction. In addition, there is a need for an institution to integrate active demand.
The next opportunity to start implementing EWPC is the state of Ohio. To develop the transition from the actual situation, a generative dialogue to re-regulate the power industry is suggested. Please refer to Restructuring of Ohio’s Power Industry Business.