Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Delaware task force hears experts on SMR costs, timelines and state levers to attract projects
Loading...
Summary
State task force heard two technical briefings on small modular reactors (SMRs) and regional capacity markets, was cautioned that first‑of‑a‑kind costs and licensing timelines drive economics, and discussed state options — early site permits, off‑take signals and modest upfront investment — to attract developers.
State Senator Stephanie Hanson, chair of Delaware’s task force on small modular reactors, opened a hybrid meeting on the study of advanced nuclear deployment and said the group would continue Module 3 work on costs and community impacts.
The panel heard first from Chris Lowessey of Idaho National Laboratory’s GAIN program, who described three deployment models — utility‑led, developer‑led and independent power producers — and cautioned that “the nuclear portion of a plant is not always the biggest portion of the plant,” with turbines, buildings and site work often dominating project scope and cost. Lowessey asked the task force to treat published cost ranges carefully, noting differences between “overnight capital cost” (which excludes financing during construction) and all‑in project costs that include financing and escalation.
The presentation used Ontario Power Generation’s multi‑unit project as a recent example; Lowessey cited publicly reported job estimates for that project but said the task force should consult the underlying reports for detailed breakdowns. When asked about federal tax incentives, Lowessey and other presenters said credits such as Section 45(b) must be understood in their application and timing. Andrew Catone noted that some provisions will be grandfathered if construction starts before 01/01/2028.
PSEG’s Robert Denight framed the economic case for Delaware by explaining PJM capacity‑market mechanics and how recent price spikes — driven in large part by projected data‑center demand, the task force heard — translate into higher consumer bills. Denight told the group that the PJM capacity market is structured around a three‑year planning window that can leave multi‑year generation projects exposed to “first‑mover” risk, and recommended that derisking strategies be considered at the state level.
Denight outlined practical pathways states could use to attract projects: making early site work and environmental sampling available, signaling demand through off‑take commitments or power‑purchase agreements, and coordinating with federal financing programs (loans, loan guarantees and targeted grants). He described developer‑led finance models in which a special‑purpose developer assembles capital, EPC (engineering/procure/construct) teams and off‑takers rather than a single utility shouldering full project risk.
Members questioned how many local, permanent jobs an SMR would create versus transient construction hires; presenters said long‑term operations staffing is smaller but higher paid and that workforce development (apprenticeships and trade training) would be essential to realize local employment benefits. Denight and others also stressed that capacity‑factor assumptions matter for land‑use comparisons: replacing one gigawatt of steady baseload generation with intermittent renewables requires significantly more nameplate capacity and therefore more land under typical capacity‑factor assumptions.
At several points task force members urged more precise, cited data. One participant cited the independent market monitor’s calculation that data‑center growth was a principal cause of recent capacity‑market conditions; task force members asked staff to circulate the referenced reports and the sources underlying the cost and job estimates.
A subset of members urged the state to act quickly to remain competitive with other states that are already funding early‑site work or offering incentives. Martin Miller proposed that Delaware identify three to four candidate sites, fund core sampling and start early‑site permitting so the state could attract developer interest — “the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry is the upfront cost,” he said — and several members asked staff to return options for modest, targeted legislative proposals before the June session deadline.
Public commenters told the task force it should accept resident input on alternative fuel designs and consider changing Delaware’s renewable portfolio standard into a clean energy standard so nuclear projects can compete for credits; the chair invited written submissions to circulate to members. The meeting ended after a motion to adjourn; the task force scheduled the next meeting to finish Module 3 on April 6.
What’s next: staff will circulate the reports and cost papers referenced by presenters, the task force asked presenters for workforce and jobs breakdowns, and members requested options and costs for early‑site permitting and limited state site acquisition to evaluate before the next scheduled meeting.
