Lawmakers pitch study of small, sodium‑cooled reactors as climate, economic tool

Representative Bob Hooper (Chittenden-13) asked the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on Feb. 27 to create a study committee to evaluate small, sodium‑cooled nuclear reactors and whether they could play a role in Vermont’s energy future.

The proposal, filed as H.8287, would convene stakeholders — including former parties to Vermont Yankee and state agencies — to examine the feasibility of siting modern, small modular reactor designs near existing generation infrastructure such as Burlington’s McNeil plant and other former or current generating sites. A proxy presenting for Hooper told the committee, “I bring to present 8287, which is a simple study committee, on a controversial subject.”

Hooper’s proxy said the study is intended to explore whether newer reactor types could help Vermont reach its climate goals while avoiding continued reliance on wood and other fossil fuels. “It’s designed to help us reach our climate goals because I don't think that we’re gonna do that if we continue to burn wood and other things,” the proxy said. He also cited demand from large data‑center operators and the potential for local economic activity during construction and operation.

Committee members asked about scope, cost and technology. Representative Koechner asked, “What does your bill do?” and was told the committee would gather decision‑makers and ideally make a recommendation on whether the state should facilitate construction; the presenter emphasized the study itself would not obligate the state to build or operate a reactor. When asked about study costs, the presenter said an initial estimate could be “a couple of hundred thousand” dollars to cover professional support and testimony.

Members discussed the technology focus. The presenter said the bill emphasizes small sodium‑cooled designs and noted they can run on different fuel types, including some spent fuel from older reactors. He referenced examples outside Vermont, saying he’d seen projects in Europe and a private‑public project in Wyoming. Committee members pressed for details: the presenter said sizes for such units span a wide range — “in the 50 to 115” megawatts or as small as 15 MW in some designs — and cited an internet report that a private investor was funding a 345–500 MW project in Wyoming, though he said he had not read every detail.

Several members noted public sensitivity to nuclear projects because of historical accidents. The presenter acknowledged local opposition and said some constituents said they would not sign on to the bill for political reasons, while others changed their minds after the rationale was explained.

The committee did not take a formal vote on H.8287 during the Feb. 27 session. Members said the concept merited further information and indicated the Department of Public Service and the public utilities commissioner had shown interest in learning more, but no formal direction to staff or next steps were recorded on the transcript.