> NRC needs certification timeliness requirements forced on it

That's going to be tough: What happens if the day comes and they don't yet know? They can't just approve it, so just deny it?

The government should cover the losses of the investors.

Various agencies are constantly missing FOIA deadlines, and often the only way to get them to actually do the jobs they are legally required to do is to sue them in court, asking for both the information and to have court costs covered.

Even if you could pass that legislation, which seems very unlikely, that doesn't solve the problem. The employees of the regulators aren't personally liable, and in many respects don't individually control the schedule. The investors also cause delays - and would now have an incentive to do that - and in many cases the/an investor is the government. Also, good luck explaining to taxpayers the $10 billion payout.

Right, the employees would have to be liable to their bosses. Their bosses would have to be answering up the chain, to congress and the president.

Presumably, for a regulatory agency to be held to a deadline, they would need to outline up front (or with reasonable notice) all of the things they would need to know and the inspections they would have to make. Those time tables would have to be defined early on.

This is where the idea breaks down.

    How does a regulator devise a fixed schedule to regulate a novel technology?

    How do you hold government employees accountable without upsetting powerful interests like politicians and unions, or get staffing funded properly on demand?

    How do you even get the government to hold itself accountable on something like this when the DOD can't even *complete a clean audit*?

We'll probably just keep winging it, badly.

> We'll probably just keep winging it, badly.

I'm not sure we are 'winging it' at all, or doing badly. It may just be an irreduceable problem.