On January 6, the Energy, Utilities, and Technology (EUT) Committee of the Maine Legislature debated amendments to a bill that would require the PUC to obtain “informational bids” on small modular reactors (SMRs) for use in Maine. The bill was rejected by the majority and amended to require the Department of Energy Resources to carefully assess the commercial readiness of all emerging energy technologies for use in the State Energy Plan. SMRs are just one of many technically feasible technologies that are not yet commercial. and that list of possibile technologies will change over time as some drop off and others are added. Statutes need to be durable, and the choice of technology-agnostic language is essential. However, the debate in the EUT focused on the inclusion of the word “nuclear” and the presumption on the part of the minority members that SMRs are indeed the frontrunners among emerging technologies. Some might see the majority’s action as driven by anti-nuclear ideology. Nothing could be further from the truth. and taking that view misses a fundamental difference about energy sources in Maine – we are buyers of the output of power plants owned and operated by third parties, which purchase equipment from manufacturers. Here’s why that makes a difference.
There was considerable discussion about the activities of other states and provinces regarding advanced nuclear technology, principally Ontario, New Brunswick, New York, and Tennessee, as if to say, “Why can’t we be like them?” All four have a subsidized state or federally owned utility company whose purpose is to develop and operate power plants. New York has an extensive energy research and development authority that is directly involved in product development. Furthermore, large entities like the Tennessee Valley Authority and Ontario Power Generation have the financial wherewithal and extraordinary subsidies to afford spending $5.5 billion on a 300-megawatt plant from GE-Hitachi.
Maine is a very different animal. We have no state power generation utility, and we prohibit private generation utilities in Maine. When Maine talks about adding new generation technologies to its energy supply mix, it means purchasing electricity from a third-party owner/operator who has bought a commercial power plant to generate it. So, unlike the TVA example, for a GE-Hitachi 300 MW SMR to happen in Maine, GE-Hitachi will have to achieve a commercially viable product that some owner/operator can afford to buy at a price that allows them to supply electricity to the state at competitive rates. GE-Hitachi will have to reduce its current unit price by at least two-thirds for its product to be helpful to any third-party operator. This could be achievable at some point in the future- the question is, how long will it take them to do that?
The questions of who the owner-operator might be and what technology the owner-operator buys to provide electricity to the State apply to all emerging energy technologies, not just SMRs. And there are many potential technologies beyond SMRs, including two types of fusion, wave and tidal marine energy conversion, algae-based biofuels, high-temperature fuel cells, advanced geothermal, microreactors, multiple new energy storage/battery technologies, and advanced solar photovoltaic systems. This is a partial list for early 2026, and it will change over time.
The job of the Department of Energy Resources is not to bet on new technologies or presume winners or losers, but to develop plans and strategies to procure affordable electricity from third parties that meet state goals through comprehensive reviews and analyses of the marketplace. The language approved by the majority of the EUT requires them to do just that.
None of this logic rejects the idea that SMRs may, at some point in the future, be one of the sources for Maine’s energy mix. We do need to acknowledge, though, that SMRs compete with a range of other sources, and the timing of third parties buying and operating SMRs to provide competitively priced electricity is very uncertain.
Rejecting the term “nuclear” in the statute language is therefore an acknowledgement of good policy development that recognizes how product commercialization proceeds among energy technology development, the time it takes for a technically feasible product to become commercially viable, as well as the unique circumstances under which Maine must plan its energy future. That’s not ideology, but good planning and management.