← Resources

US States Nuclear Progress

Source: Nucleation Capital ~73 min read
From Nucleation Capital — view the original page ↗.

# US States Nuclear Progress

States in the U.S. are once again actively competing to attract nuclear technology innovation and new nuclear builds to their regions. Within the last few years, energy demand has begun to grow. States’ efforts to transition to carbon-free energy sources are at risk unless additional sources of clean base load power can be obtained. This is what is stimulating considerable legislative activity in the states to figure out how to build advanced nuclear.

Historically, some thirty states built and operated traditional nuclear reactors. By the late 80s, sixteen states enacted some form of ban against further nuclear builds, in particular because of the federal government’s failure to fulfill its commitment to develop a waste repository. Some these states even worked to shutter the nuclear power plants that they had built, due to the protests that arose during the 1990s through to the late 2010s.

But with a growing awareness that nuclear is the safest form of energy ever developed and growing pressure to attract the data centers being built by tech hyperscalers—who are happy to buy reliable, clean nuclear power—states are circling back to figure out their strategies. Nuclear power has the benefit of having high capacity factors, stable prices and zero carbon. These features make it highly attractive for desperate energy buyers looking to purchase reliable carbon-free power. All of a sudden, customers are appearing willing to pay to re-start shuttered nuclear plants, complete nuclear builds halted prematurely and even place quantity orders for next-generation designs.

So, after a hiatus, we are again working to track this activity by state. Information is being added on a continuous basis, so please check back for updates.  (For information about US State-by-State Electricity Sources, please see Hannah Ritchie’s excellent Data Explorer, based on data from Ember Climate.)

U.S. States’ Movement towards Nuclear

We are pleased to provide this state-by-state listing of the legislation being proposed and passed across five main categories since 2016. These include: Zero-Emission Credit programs to protect viability of existing plants; Repeals of nuclear bans on construction of new nuclear; Funding of Feasibility Studies for deployment of new nuclear; and support for deployment of Advanced nuclear and SMRs or support for Fusion nuclear. Click on the state name to toggle open the information.

ALABAMA

Alabama, the nation’s fourth-largest producer of nuclear-generated electricity, operates two nuclear power plants that supply roughly one-third of the state’s electricity. In December 2025, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved subsequent license renewals for all three reactors at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, authorizing operation into the 2050s and confirming the long-term durability of Alabama’s existing nuclear fleet.

State-level nuclear policy actions—particularly with respect to next-generation technologies—remain limited but directionally supportive. In April 2025, lawmakers adopted SJR 67, which endorsed the secure storage of uranium-233 (U-233) in the state and called for a task force to evaluate related infrastructure, workforce needs, and federal coordination. The resolution highlighted the potential of advanced nuclear technologies to deliver safer, more economical, and environmentally sustainable energy, as well as opportunities for high-quality jobs and federal investment.

These actions followed HR 84 (2017), which encouraged bipartisan engagement around advanced reactor development. While Alabama has demonstrated strong institutional and operational capability through its existing fleet, the state has not yet established siting policies, deployment programs, or funding mechanisms for new nuclear construction. As a result, current activity remains focused on sustaining legacy assets rather than advancing new nuclear deployment.

Key Legislation & Policy Actions

  • Browns Ferry Subsequent License Renewals (2025) – NRC approval extending the operating licenses of all three reactors into the 2050s, reinforcing long-term operational confidence in Alabama’s existing nuclear fleet.
  • SJR 67 (2025) – Expressed support for acquiring and securely storing uranium-233 within the state. Enacted.
  • HR 84 (2017) – Encouraged bipartisan efforts to spur the development of advanced nuclear reactors. Adopted.

ALASKA

Alaska has positioned itself as one of the earliest states to prepare for microreactor deployment. In 2022, lawmakers passed SB 177, amending AS 18.45 to require the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to adopt siting and permitting regulations for microreactors. DEC finalized those rules in August 2023(18 ACC 87), including provisions for community engagement and requirements for “unorganized” boroughs. These regulations were built on the 2010 Sustainable Energy Act (SB 220), which established a statewide policy treating nuclear on equal terms with other sources and opened access to the state’s Power Project Fund.

Recent developments have moved from policy to practice. In mid-2025, the U.S. Air Force selected Eielson Air Force Base near Fairbanks as the first military site for a microreactor installation and issued a Notice of Intent to Award to Oklo, Inc. for a planned 5 MW unit, pending NRC licensing. If completed, it would be the first demonstration of a commercial microreactor on U.S. soil, placing Alaska at the forefront of small-scale nuclear deployment.

Key Legislation & Policy Actions

  • Microreactor Pilot Project Approval (June 2025) – The U.S. Air Force issued a Notice of Intent to Award to Oklo, Inc. for deploying a 5 MW microreactor at Eielson Air Force Base.
  • DEC finalized siting and permitting rules (18 AAC 87) under AS 18.45, implementing SB 177.
  • SB 177 (2022) – Enacted. Directed Alaska DEC to adopt permitting rules for microreactor siting.
  • Microreactor Siting Pilot Selection (2021) – Eielson AFB was officially chosen as the first U.S. military site for a microreactor installation, marking a major advance in practical deployment.
  • Sustainable Energy Act (SB 220, 2010) – Established a statewide energy policy that places nuclear on equal terms with other sources and allows small-scale nuclear developers access to state Power Project funding

ARIZONA

Arizona is home to Palo Verde, the nation’s second-largest nuclear power plant and a major source of the state’s electricity. While no new reactors have been built since Palo Verde, policymakers and utilities have started exploring the potential role of small modular reactors, particularly at sites of retiring coal plants or large industrial facilities. A recent proposal, HB 2774 (2025), would have exempted certain SMR projects from standard environmental and zoning reviews, but was vetoed by Governor Katie Hobbs, reflecting continued political division on nuclear expansion.

At the same time, Arizona’s utilities—including APS, SRP, and TEP—are actively positioning for federal support, applying jointly for DOE funding to study SMR deployment and participating in national tenders. The Arizona Corporation Commission has also launched a formal inquiry into nuclear’s role in the state’s clean energy mix, showing institutional interest in keeping nuclear on the table even amid policy setbacks.

Key Legislation & Policy Actions

  • HB 2774 (2025) – Introduced to allow SMR deployment without a certificate of environmental compatibility or zoning review; vetoed by Governor Hobbs in April 2025.
  • Utility Consortium Exploration (2025) – Arizona’s major utilities (APS, SRP, and TEP) jointly applied for DOE funding to study SMR deployment, with a focus on retired coal plant sites.
  • ACC Inquiry (2025) – The Arizona Corporation Commission opened a formal inquiry into opportunities for new nuclear generation, specifically SMRs.
  • DOE SMR Tender (2025) – Arizona utility consortiums positioned as participants in federal funding opportunities for first-wave SMR projects.

ARKANSAS

Arkansas has gradually shifted from nuclear research toward early-stage policy preparation. In 2019, lawmakers supported a study on commercial reuse of spent fuel, followed in 2023 by the creation of the Arkansas Nuclear Recycling Program under the Department of Environmental Quality. In 2025, the Legislature enacted two measures that signaled a more proactive stance: HB 1572 requires a comprehensive feasibility study of new nuclear generation—including siting criteria, workforce needs, and economic impacts—while SB 307, the Generating Arkansas Jobs Act, authorizes utilities to recover costs for advanced energy projects (explicitly including nuclear) and obliges them to monitor and evaluate SMRs in their long-term planning.

Following the establishment of HB 1572, Arkansas formally hired Excel Services Corporation (EXCEL) to conduct the feasibility study (mandated by the aforementioned bill). The consultancy is expected to provide a full report on siting, workforce, and economic impacts within 10 months of contract start date.

Arkansas still lacks siting or procurement mandates for new reactors, but these steps point toward a deliberate move from exploratory studies toward positioning the state for potential advanced nuclear deployment in the future.

Key Legislation & Policy Actions

  • (2025, October update) – The state officially hired Excel Services Corporation (EXCEL) to conduct the feasibility study on new nuclear energy generation.
  • HB 1572 (2025) – Established a technical feasibility study of new nuclear energy generation, including siting criteria, economic impact, and workforce needs; enacted with emergency clause.
  • SB 307 (2025) – Enacted as the Generating Arkansas Jobs Act. It allows utilities to recover costs for advanced energy technologies—including nuclear—through a rider approved by the Public Service Commission, and requires utilities to monitor and evaluate SMR technologies as part of future resource planning.
  • HB 1142 (2023) – Enacted. Established the Arkansas Nuclear Recycling Program within DEQ to explore the technical and economic viability of spent nuclear fuel recycling and storage.
  • HCR 1015 (2019) – Adopted. Supported a study into commercial applications for reclaiming and repurposing spent nuclear fuel rods.

CALIFORNIA

Alone among the most populated, industrial, and progressive U.S. states, California remains mired in antiquated antinuclear politics. Although there is a large fraction of advanced nuclear innovation happening at startups located in California, California’s moratorium on new nuclear plants will force these ventures to seek alternative states in which to build their technologies. California’s leadership has shown no interest in competing to win the race to attract all of the talent, federal funding, jobs, and economic development that will accompany the growth of this innovative sector, and, by all appearances, the state has now fallen behind Texas, Wyoming, Illinois, New York, and even Connecticut.

But, there are signs of attitudinal shifts happening even in deep blue California. Both California’s progressive Governor, Gavin Newsom, who for years worked to force the retirement of Diablo Canyon, and the state’s legislature reversed their decisions at the last minute and delayed the closure of the nuclear facility for five more years. They recognized, if reluctantly, that the plant had reliably provided almost 20% of the state’s zero-emission power and 8% of its electricity for decades. Shutting it down would expose the state to dire and life-threatening power outages without the plant’s high capacity-factor reliability and highly differentiated, non-intermittent generation. It would also set back progress on the state’s climate goals.

Sadly, despite several attempts over the years by elected legislators to bring the state into competitive parity with the country and do away with its 49-year-old nuclear moratorium, make exceptions for SMRs, and/or conduct feasibility studies about SMRs, these bills have not made it out of committee. Thus, the state appears poised to miss out on the energy revolution made possible by next-generation nuclear, even with many advanced nuclear ventures being located in California.

In the ongoing effort to extend the life of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, the California Coastal Commission has ordered PG&E to commit to a larger coastal land conservation package—over 3,000 acres—as a condition for approving the plant's 20-year license extension. The commission is scheduled to vote on the required coastal development permit before the end of 2025.

Key Legislation & Policy Actions

  • SCR 25 (2025) – Supported building a fusion energy ecosystem and planning a pilot plant in California by the 2040s.
  • AB 305 (2025) – Introduced to exempt SMRs from the moratorium and require the PUC to plan to increase nuclear procurement and phase out gas by 2028 (still in committee, not passed).
  • Resolution AJR 18 (2024) – Called on Congress to find solutions for nuclear waste.
  • AB 2092 (2024) – Proposed directing the PUC to study the feasibility of SMRs by 2027 (not voted on).
  • SB 108 (2024) – Authorized up to $400M in loans to extend Diablo Canyon’s operation.
  • SB 856 (2023) – Streamlined permitting for clean energy infrastructure (including nuclear).
  • SB 846 (2022) – Enabled a $1.4B state loan to keep Diablo Canyon open through at least 2030 (possibly 2035).
  • AB 65 (2022) – Attempted to repeal the nuclear construction moratorium (did not pass).
  • SB 100 (2018) – Set a 100% zero-carbon electricity target by 2045, allowing nuclear to count.

COLORADO

Colorado has historically been wary of nuclear power, shaped by decades of political opposition and concerns over uranium mining. The state has no operating reactors, and until recently nuclear was excluded from clean energy planning. In 2023, lawmakers authorized a study (HB 23-1247) on whether advanced nuclear could replace retiring coal plants, but the work remained exploratory.

That stance shifted in 2025 when Governor Jared Polis signed HB 25-1040, officially classifying nuclear as a clean energy resource under state law. The change makes nuclear eligible for state clean energy incentives and allows utilities and private companies to begin investing in advanced nuclear technologies, though it does not mandate deployment. The move, driven by bipartisan support and grassroots pressure, signals that nuclear will now be considered alongside renewables and storage in Colorado’s long-term energy strategy.

Key Legislation & Policy Actions

  • HB 25-1040 (2025) – Enacted. Redefines nuclear as a “clean energy resource” under Colorado law, enabling eligibility for state clean energy programs.
  • HB 23-1247 (2023) – Directed the Colorado Energy Office to study advanced nuclear technologies, including the feasibility of SMRs at retiring coal sites. Enacted.

CONNECTICUT

Connecticut has a state-wide ban, but passed an exception in 2022 that allows more nuclear construction at the site of the state’s one operating nuclear power plant, the Millstone Power Station, which generates a third of the state’s electricity. This specifically allows Dominion Energy to build advanced nuclear at the Millstone site. Dominion has shown interest in SMRs and recently announced a deal with X-energy to build its advanced design, in partnership with Amazon.

Key Legislation & Policy Actions

  • Senate Bill 4 (2025) – Created a $5M site-readiness fund for municipalities to explore advanced nuclear (SMRs and fusion), contingent on local opt-in vote to lift the moratorium.
  • Ratepayers First Act (2025) – Enacted bipartisan reform allocating $5M to nuclear site readiness and expanding energy affordability programs.
  • SB 1560 (2025) – Reclassified all in-state nuclear generation as Class I renewable; established the Connecticut Energy Procurement Authority, Green Bond Fund, and Energy Infrastructure Transition Fund. Passed both chambers, awaiting governor’s signature.
  • SB 385 (2024) – Permitted DEEP to coordinate with other New England states to procure nuclear generation resources for ten years after contract expiration.
  • SB 7 (2023) – Expanded Class I renewables to include nuclear facilities built after Oct 1, 2023; created the Council for Advancing Nuclear Energy Development; directed DEEP to study SMRs, advanced reactors, fusion, and other zero-carbon sources.
  • HB 5202 (2022) – Established a hydrogen task force, including nuclear as a potential clean hydrogen source.
  • HB 10 (2022) – Created an exception to Connecticut’s moratorium, allowing SMRs at Millstone.
  • HB 1501 (2017) – Allowed Millstone to participate in the state’s zero-carbon procurement program.

DELAWARE

Delaware, while the second smallest state, is home to more than two-thirds of the nation’s Fortune 500 companies due to its favorable tax climate. It produces less energy than any other state yet consumes nearly 100 times more than it generates. Despite this, Delaware has not advanced any nuclear-related policies or initiatives. The state has no operating nuclear facilities, has not introduced legislation for small modular reactors or advanced nuclear technologies, and continues to focus its clean energy strategy on offshore wind, solar, and efficiency measures.

Key Legislation & Policy Actions

  • No nuclear-specific legislation or regulatory actions to date.

FLORIDA

Florida has taken its first meaningful steps toward exploring advanced nuclear power. In 2024, the state enacted HB 1645, which mandated the Public Service Commission (PSC) to evaluate the feasibility of advanced nuclear technologies, including small modular reactors. The PSC delivered its Advanced Nuclear Power Feasibility Report in March 2025, offering technical and economic analysis, recommending potential partnerships, particularly with military installations, and advising paths toward deployment.

The report also emphasized Florida’s heavy reliance on natural gas, which accounts for about 75% of its electricity generation (vs. nuclear’s 11%) and suggested that SMRs could provide a valuable hedge against fuel price volatility and grid vulnerability. While no siting or deployment policy has been established, these actions mark the first formal move to consider nuclear in Florida’s long-term clean energy planning.

Key Legislation & Policy Actions

  • Florida PSC Feasibility Report (2025) – Issued. The Public Service Commission submitted its advanced nuclear power feasibility report as mandated by HB 1645. This included technical and economic evaluation and recommendations for deployment, especially in partnership with military installations.
  • HB 1645 (2024) – Enacted (Chapter No. 2024‑186). Required the PSC to study advanced nuclear power technologies—including SMRs—and issue findings by April 1, 2025.

GEORGIA

Georgia’s nuclear profile is anchored by the completion of Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4 — the first newly built commercial reactors in the U.S. in more than 30 years and now the largest nuclear power plant in the country, with a generating capacity north of 4,500 megawatts. The outcome was shaped by earlier laws: SB 31 (2009) authorized utilities to recover financing costs from ratepayers during construction, a mechanism that helped sustain Vogtle through years of overruns. Nearly a decade later, SB 355 (2018) closed that option for future projects, reflecting concerns about cost exposure.

Nevertheless, each new unit delivers significant value, producing carbon-free electricity sufficient to power about half a million homes and contributing to a measurable reduction in the state’s emissions intensity. Georgia has not promoted policies for advanced reactors, with its stance centered on large-scale builds rather than next-generation designs.

Key Legislation & Policy Actions

  • PSC Regulation No. 29849 (2023) – Approved Georgia Power’s request to adjust rates to recover “reasonable and prudent” costs from Vogtle Units 3 & 4.
  • SB 355 (2018) – Enacted. Sunsets the Nuclear Energy Financing Act’s CWIP (Construction Work in Progress) prepayment mechanism for new nuclear plants after Jan 1, 2018.
  • SB 31 (2009) – Enacted as the Nuclear Energy Financing Act. Allowed utilities to recover financing costs during construction of PSC-certified nuclear plants directly from customers.

HAWAII

Hawaii has one of the most restrictive nuclear policies in the U.S., anchored in Article XI, Section 8 of its Constitution, which prohibits the construction of nuclear fission plants without a two-thirds vote of both legislative chambers.

No nuclear facilities have ever been built in the state, and nuclear has been excluded from its energy strategy, which instead focuses on achieving 100% renewable electricity by 2045 through solar, wind, and geothermal.

Public debate has focused on renewable integration and reducing reliance on imported petroleum, though nuclear has recently entered the conversation. In 2024, lawmakers introduced a constitutional amendment (HB 1741) to repeal the two-thirds approval requirement, but the measure did not advance to voters. In 2025, legislators enacted SB 1588, establishing a Nuclear Energy Task Force within the Hawaii Sta

← All resources