A few months ago, I was walking my dogs and listening to an episode of Volts, a podcast and newsletter about clean energy and politics from former Grist and Vox writer David Roberts. The episode was an interview with Jigar Shah, who, until very recently, served as the director of the Loan Programs Office in the US Department of Energy.
Roberts opened the conversation by saying “So, we are here to talk about everyone’s favorite subject: nuclear power — upon which everyone has calm and reasoned and fully, empirically backed opinions.” Shah interrupted, pointing out that “The easiest way to trigger people is just to say the word ‘nuclear’.”
This resonated with me. I’ve never gotten as many emails as the few times I’ve written about nuclear power, which, while it’s enjoying somewhat of a renaissance, remains perhaps the most divisive form of energy we’ve ever invented.
Some of those divisions were on display in the Energy, Utility and Technology Committee hearing room earlier over the past two weeks as the committee held public hearings and work sessions on three bills that would advance nuclear power in Maine: L.D. 342, L.D. 343 and L.D. 601.
During the discussion, advocates touted nuclear as a consistent, efficient, carbon-free source of electricity with a small geographic footprint. Opponents worried about cost overruns, waste disposal and the potential for accidents.
Much of the conversation centered around to what extent the state should be investing in emerging technologies.
The first bill, L.D. 342, “An Act to Include Nuclear Power in the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard,” would be the most impactful were it to pass, and would allow nuclear reactors built after Jan. 1, 2025 to be considered renewable energy in Maine. The legislation would allow such reactors to count toward the state’s goal of getting to 80 percent renewable energy by 2030 and 100 percent by 2050 and to be eligible for the state’s renewable energy credits.
As written, the bill would not apply to the region’s two existing nuclear power plants, in New Hampshire and Connecticut, which generated 23 percent of New England’s power as of January, according to ISO-New England.
The second bill, L.D. 343, “An Act to Direct the Public Utilities Commission to Seek Informational Bids Regarding Small Modular Nuclear Reactors in the State,” directs the Maine PUC to solicit annual informational bids for the establishment of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) under 350 megawatts.
SMRs are an emerging technology that proponents say is more flexible, scalable and safer than traditional large nuclear reactors, akin to the nuclear technology used on submarines. Detractors argue that it is still too unproven to be commercially viable and subject to the same cost overruns and public perception problems as nuclear technology of the past.
The third bill, L.D. 601, “An Act to Remove State-imposed Referendum Requirements Regarding Nuclear Power,” would roll back laws that have been in place for decades that require that new nuclear plants, waste disposal or storage facilities be approved by public referenda.
The work session on the bill that would allow new nuclear plants to count as renewable, L.D. 342, was tabled because lawmakers decided they wanted to consider it alongside another bill that has yet to be printed but is expected to define a “clean energy standard” that could incorporate nuclear generation.
The other two bills — L.D. 343 and L.D. 601 — advanced out of committee with divided reports.
During the public hearing, the Governor’s Energy Office and the state’s major environmental organizations were open to considering nuclear as clean energy but largely opposed allowing new or existing nuclear to be eligible for the state’s renewable energy credits.
“It may make sense to keep those facilities operating to provide low-carbon electricity to our grid as we build up our renewable capacity as a state and a region,” said Jack Shapiro, climate and clean energy director for the Natural Resources Council of Maine.
But allowing existing nuclear plants to be eligible for the state’s renewable energy credits, Shapiro continued, “would be directing Maine ratepayer funds to existing projects elsewhere with no real benefit for Maine,” in the sense that it would allow those plants to compete with projects with more direct ties to the state.
Rep. Reagan Paul (R-Winterport), the bill’s sponsor, argued that “wind and solar have been heavily subsidized for years,” and that the state needs to consider whether it should keep “propping up technologies that can’t provide reliable baseload power.”
Paul blamed much of the cost overruns on the regulatory burden and public perception of nuclear power, which often results in lawsuits that draw projects out for decades.
“lf we can streamline and eliminate these unnecessary hurdles, nuclear power will become more cost-effective and competitive without requiring the kind of subsidies that wind and solar depend on.”
Most committee members seemed open to the idea of counting the existing nuclear energy coming into Maine as “clean” for the purposes of meeting the state’s emissions-reduction goals, but were split on whether the state should pursue new nuclear power in the form of SMRs, with many worrying the technology was too experimental.
Only one SMR design has received approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; the first project expected to deploy the design, in Idaho Falls, Idaho, was canceled in 2023 due largely to anticipated cost increases.
“Why would we ask Maine to go first on something that is still a hypothetical technology being done by startups?” wondered Rep. Valli Geiger (D-Rockland). “When they’re a proven technology we should definitely get in line, but I don’t think Maine should be the first.”
