| Since the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in 1979, nuclear energy has had little growthin the U.S. Cost and schedule overruns coupled with declining public support brought an end to new plants for decades. Then, in the 2000s, 31 states adopted supportive nuclear energy policy in an era of rising public support, and continued to do so even with dropping support after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. Even states with moratoriums on new nuclear plants adopted supportive policy; some even repealed moratoriums. Theory supported by a wealth of policy research suggests that policy adoption generally reacts to changes in public opinion. Is nuclear energy an exception? Are economics overwhelming attitudes? Are attitudes toward nuclear energy changing? This study applies event history analysis between 2002 and 2019 and logistical regression comparing 2003 data to 2018, to help explain what is happening. The results indicate that states are responding to public opinion, once policy content is examined. States adopt substantive policy when support is rising, but when support falls, adopt policy that is more symbolic –reassuringinterest groups without offending the general public. Economic reasons matter, but attitudes, which may be shifting with concerns for climate change, make policy possible. Key Words: energy policy, nuclear energy, nuclear power, public opinion, trust in government, state policy, policy diffusion, substantive policy, symbolic policy |