Nuclear power is undergoing a “transition,” a regional energy expert said, as New England looks anew to the technology to meet rising electricity demand.
The shift was on display Wednesday at UMass Lowell, where energy officials, researchers and industry representatives from across the six-state region gathered to explore advanced reactors, fusion and the practical hurdles to bringing new nuclear capacity online.
Outside, protesters carried signs opposing nuclear power and a truck circled the building carrying a “mock nuclear waste cask,” underscoring the enduring divide over nuclear energy.
Sukesh Aghara, a professor and associate dean at UMass Lowell, described the shift: “What we are seeing is more than simply a renewed interest in nuclear. It is a nuclear transition.”
The technologies are changing, he said, as are the regulatory framework, the companies entering the sector and the way states think about nuclear sites. Small modular reactors, microreactors and fusion are being developed alongside the large conventional reactors that have dominated the industry for decades.
ISO New England forecasts a 9% increase in annual electricity consumption, Aghara said, with particular concern about winter peak demand through 2035.
“Nuclear is already part of this region’s ecosystem,” he said.
The region’s existing nuclear plants at Millstone in Connecticut and Seabrook in New Hampshire supply roughly a quarter of New England’s electricity, according to the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs.
During opening remarks to the day-long conference, Massachusetts EEA Secretary Rebecca Tepper said, “We shouldn’t take resources off the table before we fully understand them.”
The renewed interest is also emerging from a shortage of obvious alternatives.
Five of six New England states have ambitious decarbonization requirements, but electricity demand is rising for the first time in decades, said Connecticut Acting Commissioner of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Emma Cimino.
Offshore wind has faced delays and economic challenges, while efforts to expand natural gas infrastructure have struggled to gain traction.
“We’ve turned over a lot of rocks without finding much underneath them,” Cimino said.
She said the region’s difficulties expanding natural gas capacity have consequences beyond the electric grid, constraining economic development and the region’s ability to attract new businesses and residents.
“It feels like there’s a real moment to look to a new technology,” she said.
Connecticut is approaching that possibility from a position other New England states do not have: decades of experience operating nuclear power.
The state previously had a moratorium on new nuclear development but has modified its policy to allow new development at Millstone or in communities that affirmatively choose to explore hosting nuclear facilities. Connecticut is also preparing a program to provide funding to communities that want to assess whether they are ready to host a new facility.
Cimino said the state’s approach is deliberately focused on local control.
“It’s not us. It’s not top down. It’s bottom up,” she said.
The state is holding informational meetings on nuclear safety, technology and other issues so residents and local officials can make informed decisions about whether they want to pursue hosting new facilities, she said.
In Massachusetts, Gov. Maura Healey’s administration has pursued policies aimed at opening Massachusetts to newer nuclear technologies. An energy bill she filed last year would repeal Chapter 503, a voter-approved 1982 law that requires statewide voter approval before a new nuclear power plant can be built in Massachusetts.
In the preamble of her energy legislation, Healey said repealing the law would eliminate “a major barrier to the consideration of new small modular reactors that could improve reliability, stabilize prices, and decarbonize the region’s power grid.”
The administration also announced last year it was teaming up with UMass Lowell on an advanced nuclear and fusion roadmap, saying it would help Massachusetts “leverage our strengths to lower costs and grow these industries.”
Marie Louise “Weezie” Nuara, Massachusetts’ deputy secretary for federal and regional affairs, said the state’s advanced nuclear and fusion roadmap is not a plan to build a reactor.
“This roadmap effort is not about identifying potential sites,” Nuara said. “It’s not about picking a reactor technology, and it’s not about making a decision to deploy new nuclear.”
Instead, she said, the state is trying to establish what it would need to know before making those decisions — from workforce and education needs to regulation, regional coordination, community engagement and public understanding.
UMass Lowell held introductory webinars late last year and then conducted a series of sector-specific stakeholder sessions in January.
A survey done for the study showed 91% stakeholders surveyed said they need more credible, trust-based information about advanced nuclear before they can meaningfully discuss its role in the region’s energy future, Nuara said.
“We are really just at the beginning,” she said.
Stephen Auton-Smith, senior managing director at Ernst & Young Infrastructure Advisors, said the economics of new nuclear projects almost certainly mean governments will have to play a role in getting the industry moving.
“I don’t think there’s a single project that I’m aware of that hasn’t needed government support in one form or another,” he said, citing direct funding, low-cost financing and revenue support.
“Doing this purely privately at this stage is largely impossible,” he said.
The enthusiasm for small modular reactors met some skepticism from David Parsons, an MIT professor, who cautioned that shrinking the size of a reactor does not necessarily solve the larger problems of construction, financing and project management. And while Massachusetts has become a center of fusion research and development, he said fusion cannot address the region’s immediate electricity needs.
“It’s wonderful that Massachusetts has the first demonstration project of a fusion plant being built, but that’s not putting electrons on the grid tomorrow,” Parsons said.
Still, the prospect of new nuclear is gaining attention across the region.
In New Hampshire, Director of Energy Innovation Thomas Barrasso said Gov. Kelly Ayotte got the largest standing ovation of her State of the State address when she announced the state would explore advanced nuclear.
The governor subsequently issued an executive order directing the state to explore how advanced nuclear could be tracked, developed and deployed.
But Barrasso said New Hampshire, like other states, does not want to be the pioneer.
“We do not want to be the first of a kind,” he said. “We want to be the end of a kind.”
Parsons said that hesitation is understandable but could become a problem if every state waits for another to absorb the risks of building new nuclear facilities.
“Everybody wants, as my colleague said, to be the fifth one to build after other people take the risks on the first ones,” Parsons said.
Rhode Island, meanwhile, is approaching nuclear after years of emphasizing offshore wind.
Chris Kearns, acting commissioner of the Rhode Island Office of Energy Resources, pointed to Revolution Wind, which began as a regional offshore wind proposal in 2018 and is now nearing completion after years of development.
The experience, he said, illustrates how long it can take to bring a major new energy resource online.
Rhode Island has also amended its renewable energy standard to allow nuclear and fusion to participate in meeting the state’s clean-energy requirements, and Kearns said the state is involved in multistate discussions about potentially participating in future New England nuclear projects.
In Vermont, affordability is driving much of the discussion.
Kerrick Johnson, commissioner of the Vermont Department of Public Service, said climate-driven extreme weather is increasingly affecting electricity costs and putting pressure on vulnerable households.
“What’s driving a lot of our views on energy is affordability and extreme weather from climate change,” Johnson said.
Vermont does not have a nuclear moratorium, although new nuclear development requires legislative approval in addition to other state approvals. Johnson said nuclear is largely supported in the state, but remains controversial.
But he argued the region has little reason to wait indefinitely.
“We have a need right now for new energy and to get it online,” Johnson said.
The same urgency is part of the argument being made in Massachusetts, where Healey is seeking to repeal the voter-approved law requiring statewide approval before a new nuclear plant can be built.
The repeal is part of ongoing negotiations over redrafts of the governor’s energy legislation. The House included it; the Senate did not.
Outside the summit, opponents of the repeal and of nuclear power generally gathered to make clear that the decades-old debate has not disappeared.
Protesters from the Commonwealth Coalition for Democracy and Safe Energy held signs warning about radioactive waste and health risks and urging Healey not to “trash Democracy for an unproven technology.” A Citizens Awareness Network truck circled the block carrying a large model of a nuclear waste cask.
Susanae Glowacki of Greenfield, who said she has been involved in opposition to nuclear power since the 1970s, said the renewed push reflects political pressure to show that Massachusetts is considering every possible energy source.
“I think it’s just a political strategy for the governor,” Glowacki said.
A coalition statement said Chapter 503 represents a public safeguard that should not be removed.
Inside the summit, however, officials were focused on how to make the most of a moment of what they see as shifting winds.