Yesterday, Governor Ned Lamont joined New England’s five other governors in signing a joint statement committing to exploring deployment of advanced nuclear reactors to meet the region’s energy needs while preserving the region’s existing nuclear reactors.
“New England has a long tradition of collaborating on regional energy matters,” reads the joint statement. “By ensuring both the continued operation of our existing nuclear fleet and setting our region on a path to explore next generation resources, including advanced nuclear energy technologies, the New England states will continue our leadership in grid modernization and energy innovation as we jointly work to meet the region’s current and future energy needs.”
Lamont’s signature was joined by those of Kelly Ayotte, Governor of New Hampshire, Janet Mills, Governor of Maine, Maura Healey, Governor of Massachusetts, Dan McKee, Governor of Rhode Island, and Phil Scott, Governor of Vermont.
ISO New England, the non-profit organization that coordinates the region’s electric grid, has projected the region’s electric demand to increase by approximately 44% by 2045, from 117,262 gigawatt-hours (GWh) in 2025 to 168,789 kWh in 2045. ISO expects summer peak demands to increase by approximately 30% and winter peaks to double over that timeframe. The governors’ joint statement highlights these statistics, stating New England, “must work together to meet this growing demand through an approach that ensures we have the resources needed to fuel our economies and protect our citizens.”
To do so, the governors commit to instructing state energy agencies to “explore opportunities to ensure the continued safe, affordable, and reliable operation of our region’s existing nuclear generation facilities,” and to “explore steps to deploy advanced nuclear generation.”
Commissioned in 1975, Connecticut currently operates New England’s largest nuclear power plant, the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant, in Waterford. It is the state’s only nuclear power plant and produces around one-third of the state’s electricity. In 2019, the state reached a power purchase agreement with Dominion Energy, Millstone’s operator, stipulating the state’s continued purchase of 50% of the plant’s output over the next ten years at a rate of $49.99 per megawatt-hour. While the deal has since been criticized for its role in increasing the state’s electric rates, recent technological advancements in nuclear energy generation have shown promise in reducing the procurement costs of nuclear energy, while simultaneously increasing safety and efficiency.
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission separates advanced reactors into two categories: non-light-water reactors (non-LWRs), which use coolants other than water to moderate nuclear reactions, and small-modular light-water reactors (SMRs), which are downsized versions of traditional reactors. SMRs are designed to be smaller and safer, making them cheaper and ideally quicker to deploy than traditional nuclear reactors, while non-LWRs explore the potential of new nuclear fuels and coolants to generate electric power more efficiently.
“As we look to expand the region’s generation capacity, advanced nuclear technologies show promise in their ability to contribute safely and reliably to the resource mix,” reads the statement. “Such advanced nuclear generation, including new designs with improved efficiency, safety, and operational flexibility, could contribute to meeting our region’s need for new affordable and dependable energy supply, help address longstanding winter reliability challenges by enhancing fuel security, and contribute to meeting electrification and decarbonization goals and requirements for the states that have them.”
The governors claimed that affordability and community input regarding the siting, planning and provision of new nuclear generators would be key to all future efforts. State energy agencies are being directed to explore opportunities for federal funding, public-private cooperation, and new regulations that, “will protect consumers, help meet our region’s energy needs, and enable New England to capture job growth and economic development opportunities from the deployment of new nuclear technologies with advanced safety systems.”
After the exploration of these options, the joint statement pledged that the region’s state energy departments will meet to compare their findings and solicit public input from “the public and relevant stakeholders.”
“Underpinning this effort is a commitment to ensuring local voices shape decision-making from the outset, including community-led approaches to explore appropriate, responsible locations for new nuclear development; fostering public trust and support through meaningful dialogue; and paying careful attention to concerns surrounding the safety, security, siting, disposition of nuclear generation waste, and costs associated with deploying new nuclear technologies,” reads the joint statement. “This will ensure that the decision of whether and where to site new nuclear facilities is made by individual states with their local communities.”
A separate statement released by Lamont’s office highlights last year’s passage of Public Act 25-173, which created a mechanism through which Connecticut municipalities can opt in to siting advanced nuclear reactors, as an example of the state’s commitment to yielding to local input. Last week, a DEEP spokesperson told Connecticut Public Radio that so far, no towns have opted in. The bill also authorized $5 million in bonding for Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) to create a program that supports early planning, technical analysis, and community engagement for advanced nuclear reactors. Per the Governor’s Office, DEEP has “already convened two public workshops” for the program, and plans to conduct additional public hearings this spring.
Senate Republican leader Stephen Harding Jr. (Brookfield) and Sen. Ryan Fazio (R-Greenwich), Ranking Member on the Energy and Technology Committee, released a statement in support of Lamont’s support for the joint state initiative, while calling for the elimination of the state’s public benefits charge.
“Joint statements like this are good,” reads the statement. “We applaud any bipartisan effort to push for more safe, clean, reliable, and affordable nuclear power. But a good start this year here in Connecticut would be to eliminate the hidden public benefits taxes on our too-damn-high electricity bills.”
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Nice article, Brandon.
1. New Nuclear is still expensive 15+ c/kWh (not the 4.99 c/kWh for Millstone) but cheaper and more reliable than offshore wind. If nuclear price comes down 25% by 2040, then 5117 MW of nuclear SMRs replaces 44,000 MW of wind/solar/storage by 2050 according to the ISO 2024 Economic Study.
2) The problem is the low load factor 13.7% heating load which Brandon notes will double the Winter load by 2045. You must build 7 times the capacity to serve a MWH of heating load as 95% capacity factor data center load. The heating spike load is major reason the nukes run at 13 to 50% capacity factor or at 6 to 2 times their normal cost at 93% capacity factor.
3) Consumer Alert. Presently winter generation costs are 2-4 times the other months, but we pay a near flat 6 month average price. Non heat pump customers are subsidizing heat pump customers and the subsidy will increase by $1.4B per year with the $450M Heat Pump Accelerator Program. As a result costs will rapidly escalate due to the 4-12 times higher marginal cost of heating load compared to the present load. Most customers will not see a savings with heat pumps. See my comments on the Standard Service docket 26-01-01 and the CT Integrated Resource Docket. The key is to set prices at cost which means a winter price of about 20c, spring/fall prices of about 5 c and summer price of about 7 c.
4) We are hurting our kids future by forcing the electrification of 25,000 MW of expensive heating load of the past rather than serving the much smaller data center load and other businesses of the future which costs 1/7 the capital cost to serve as heating load.
Load characteristics are more important in determining costs than generation. Customers are smart. If we send the right cost based price signal, then we will get the lowest cost, most economically efficient system