Here’s what CT’s new laws mean for small nuclear reactors in the state

Connecticut lawmakers are readying for a new generation of nuclear power plants, including so-called “small modular reactors” that supporters say could provide reliable, carbon-free power, potentially reduce electricity bills and allow towns to generate their own power for residents.

Such technology could help Connecticut reach Gov. Ned Lamont’s stated goal of a 100% zero-carbon electric grid by 2040, without building over farmland or forests, a balancing act the state has been struggling with. 

Smaller reactors may offset the growing energy use by data centers and lower electric bills by creating more supply, advocates say. And since they may be the size of a shipping container, they could be placed in urban areas where technology, such as solar or wind farms, could not.

But despite bipartisan support in Hartford, a new law to study nuclear technology, rapidly advancing technology and a push from the Trump administration for new small nuclear reactors, lawmakers and industry experts say Connecticut is unlikely to see one operating before the mid-2030s.

Last year, a longstanding statewide moratorium on the construction of new nuclear facilities was relaxed, and a $5 million “site readiness” grant program was created for towns that want to consider nuclear power. This year, the legislature passed a law directing the Connecticut Council for Advancing Nuclear Energy Development to study workforce needs for advanced nuclear technologies, including small modular reactors and microreactors.

President Donald Trump issued an executive order a year ago calling small nuclear reactors a technology with “revolutionary potential” and directing the U.S. Department of Energy to grant initial approval to at least three advanced reactors by July 4. This summer, the Demonstration of Microreactor Experiments test site in Idaho is evaluating designs from companies, including Radiant Industries and Westinghouse. 

U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright told CNBC that one company, Texas-based Aalo Atomics, had received approval in advance of the July 4 deadline.

Jeff Semancik, radiation division director at the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, said four projects are being tested, and said all four had moved on to the next phase of regulatory review. 

 “They achieved the initial criticality, which is just showing that it can make power and do it safely,” he said. “The next milestones out there are by November of 2027, they’re supposed to have one of the microreactors powering some infrastructure at a DOE facility, and by September of 2028 there’s supposed to be one powering a military installation.”

Hitesh Bindra, an associate professor at the Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering, said the first micronuclear reactors in the U.S. could be built and connected to local grids soon.

“I anticipate that it will not be more than two, three years,” he said. “It’s actually going very fast, and several vendors are far ahead in their long-term strategy. There is a significant push on the deployment right now.”

Connecticut legislators began laying the groundwork for this years ago, according to state Sen. Norm Needleman, D-Essex. They first removed legal barriers to build additional reactors at the Millstone Power Station in Waterford, the state’s only nuclear power plant, and later did the same for projects elsewhere in the state.

For decades, high-profile nuclear disasters such as those that occurred at Fukushima and Three Mile Island had tainted conversations about new nuclear projects, despite its potential, said Needleman, co-chair of the legislature’s Energy & Technology Committee. But supporters argued that nuclear plants are far more efficient and can operate for years between refueling, unlike coal- and natural gas-fired plants that require a constant supply. 

“There were still some residual people my age who were opposed to even considering it,” Needleman said. “Three Mile Island notwithstanding, everything we built has withstood the test of time, and they’re very safe.” 

Needleman said he expects new nuclear facilities could become a reality soon, which was the impetus behind the legislative action.

“We’ve looked at 2030 to 2035 as a period of probably the most intense activities,” he said. “So that’s why we’re planning.” 

But state Rep. Tracy Marra, R-Darien, said she believes micronuclear reactors won’t appear in Connecticut for a decade, at least.

“You can’t even get a bridge here sooner than that,” said Marra, ranking member of the legislature’s Energy & Technology Committee. 

There are limits on how small a nuclear reactor can be, said Bindra, the Purdue professor. A reactor needs enough fuel to sustain a nuclear chain reaction; one that’s too small would require refueling too often to be practical. 

The micronuclear reactors being tested now could fit into a shipping container, producing between 1 and 20 megawatts of energy, Bindra said. Slightly larger are small modular reactors, or SMRs, which can produce as much as 300 megawatts. By comparison, the Millstone Power Station has a generating capacity of 2,111 megawatts, according to owner Dominion Energy. 

Semancik from DEEP estimated that a 50-megawatt nuclear generator could power “somewhere between 25,000 and 50,000 homes.”

“They are a couple of orders of magnitude smaller than the typical nuclear power plant,” Bindra said. “It is envisioned that these types of reactors can be deployed much faster, and can be constructed in a factory, then they can be assembled in a factory, and then they can go to the site for deployment.”

Needleman said he believes SMRs, “properly utilized, are a great option for the future,” but he also said that security issues alone would make deployment of a small nuclear reactor in a Connecticut town a far more complex task than it seems. 

“If you wanted to put a 50 megawatt or 25 megawatt SMR at the sub base, you already have the security now. If you wanted to put it at a large industrial site, for example, like where they build the submarines, maybe that would work. If you wanted to put it at Pratt & Whitney, maybe that would work,” he said.

“But just thinking that we can have a technology that’s going to be so distributed where it could go anywhere, I don’t think we’re there yet,” Needleman said. 

Gov. Lamont spoke about nuclear power in his 2026 State of the State address in February. The following month, he and the governors of all six New England states issued a joint statement affirming the region’s commitment to developing nuclear energy projects as they work “to meet the region’s current and future energy needs.” 

Lamont’s Republican challenger for governor, state Sen. Ryan Fazio, R-Greenwich, has encouraged the technology’s development as a member of the Connecticut Council for Advancing Nuclear Energy Development. 

“It’s necessary, and I think everyone knows that, too,” he said of nuclear power. “I think one of the great crimes of the last 20 years in energy policy has been allowing at least half a dozen major nuclear plants to go offline in the northeastern United States.”

In the legislature, “both sides support it,” said Rep. Marra, suggesting that nuclear energy is not as politically divisive as some other renewable energy sources.  

“Maybe technology will come along to where we can harness solar a little bit better. But the amount of solar panels we would have to have in order to actually generate enough power for our area is more than the land that we have,” she said. “I think that both sides agree, particularly on the Energy and Tech Committee, that nuclear is the cleanest energy that we have — cleanest and most reliable.”

In an interview with CT Insider, Emma Cimino, acting DEEP commissioner, said, “there’s some really interesting bipartisan interest from the General Assembly in these new technologies.” The agency has had “a few conversations with companies, just learning more about about different products, different  areas where research is still ongoing,” she said. 

Despite the political support, no Connecticut community has taken the $5 million offered to explore the possibility of a nuclear plant, Katie Dykes, former DEEP commissioner, has said. But Cimino clarified that it’s still early in the process. She said the she, Semancik and Deputy DEEP Commissioner Andy Frank have been doing a series of workshops talking to residents about nuclear technology, a process that is ongoing. 

“The next stage is sort of asking for towns who are interested to express that interest. But I think certainly, you know, nobody’s preemptively raising their hand, eager and willing here. But again we haven’t gotten to that that stage of it yet,” she said. 

Dykes also testified before the state legislature’s Energy and Technology Committee in March, saying “it’s become very clear” other states “are a little ahead of us in the new nuclear effort.”

“There’s so much that has evolved and changed in the nuclear industry since the last time that Connecticut was in a dialogue with communities about siting and hosting new nuclear, which was decades ago,” she testified.

Safety remains a concern for many, Marra said, even though modern nuclear plants are “so much better” than when nuclear power was new. But despite a bipartisan consensus on its value, she does not expect Connecticut to be a leader in nuclear technology. 

“We’re not really seeing them happen at this point,” she said. “I think Connecticut is probably not going to be the first one on the list to be up and running with any of the smaller nuclear reactors.”