SMRs Eyed for Retired Nuclear Sites in Wisconsin and Vermont

Two old reactor sites back in play

In the space of one week, two states that once ran nuclear plants and then closed them have started talking openly about putting small modular reactors (SMRs) on the same land. In Wisconsin, Dairyland Power Cooperative and the reactor developer Applied Atomics signed a letter of intent to study whether SMRs could be built at the old La Crosse nuclear site in Genoa.1 In Vermont, Public Service Commissioner Kerrick Johnson told the Vernon Selectboard on October 20 that the former Vermont Yankee site would be a good home for a small reactor.123

Neither plan is a firm project. Both, though, point to the same pattern: grid planners and developers now see shuttered nuclear sites as valuable real estate. The buildings are gone, but the transmission lines, cooling water, and local acceptance that came with the old plants are still there. Electricity demand is rising, and the coverage of both states keeps coming back to the same question of who will buy and use the power from new reactors. Data centers are part of that answer.

Genoa: an old BWR site and a revived reactor design

Dairyland ran a 50-MWe boiling water reactor at La Crosse from 1967 to 1987. The site was fully decommissioned by 2023, and a coal plant next door has also been retired.1 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission released the La Crosse site for unrestricted public use after finding that the decommissioning met its radiation standards.9 Spent fuel is still stored there.6

Under the letter of intent, the two companies will assess Applied Atomics' reactor technology, work out how many units the site could hold, and explore a possible power purchase agreement.1 Applied Atomics CEO Ben Kellie named the site's generating history, its existing transmission, and Dairyland's growing demand as reasons it could see clean nuclear power by the early 2030s.1

The likely technology has a troubled history. The leading candidate is BWXT's mPower pressurized water reactor, a design BWXT shelved in 2017 because of market conditions. This summer, Applied Atomics licensed exclusive rights to deploy it on land.1 The capacity figures don't match, either. Applied Atomics describes the reactor as a 195-MWe design, but the joint announcement says each unit would produce 100 MWe.1 That kind of gap is common at this early stage. It also shows how much of the design, and of the business case, is still undecided.

Dairyland has explored SMRs before. In 2022 it signed a memorandum of understanding with NuScale to look at that company's design.4 So the new agreement looks less like a sudden shift and more like a cooperative trying a different vendor while the industry sorts itself out.

Vernon: transmission is what makes the site valuable

In Vermont, the pitch rests almost entirely on the grid connection next to the old plant. Johnson told Vernon officials that the former Vermont Yankee site matters to Vermont and to the New England grid because it sits beside a switchyard owned by VELCO, the transmission company owned by the state's utilities.21 He listed the site's transmission, river access, and rail spur as its main advantages.1 Back in June, he called the substation "an energy crossroads" that Vermont ratepayers had paid for and that was being underused.24

Johnson tied the interest to affordability and climate goals. He said demand is growing and has pushed up customer bills, which he expects to rise another 40% in the coming years.23 He told the selectboard that New England has a "hunger for electrons," and he cited a survey, which he did not name, showing 63% of Vermonters support nuclear power.1 Governor Phil Scott backed "small-scale nuclear" in a debate the next day. His Democratic challenger, Amanda Janoo, opposed nuclear and pointed to the radioactive waste still stored in Vernon.21

Johnson was careful about timing and community consent. He estimated an SMR at Vernon would take seven to eight years even if work began now.1 He warned that many SMR and fusion companies are startups and that the field needs to "shake out" before the state chooses a partner.1 He also said his department would not support any project the town opposes.21

The data center question

Data centers are central to the Vermont story, even though Johnson's October remarks focused on reactors. PowerTransitions, a Houston developer owned by the private equity firm Partners Group, holds a lease on the Vermont Yankee property from NorthStar. Its options have grown from battery storage to include a data center or an SMR.26 The company is already planning a data center at a former gas plant in Kansas City, Kansas.24 In an update to town officials, PowerTransitions said SMRs are its long-term goal and batteries its near-term focus. It also argued that a data center's steady power demand could help stabilize the grid.25

Johnson has been wary. In June he said any data center at the site would have to produce its own power so it wouldn't strain the grid, and he called public opinion of data centers "pretty negative."30 He has also said the state, not PowerTransitions, holds the first option on the 140-acre parcel. That right comes from a 2018 agreement, and Johnson said he "didn't like how we found out" about the lease.26 In his view, the strongest option is a reactor paired with battery storage, which he believes would bring more jobs than batteries or solar alone.21

Wisconsin's other old-plant project shows how data center demand can drive these plans and also make them harder. At the retired Kewaunee plant, EnergySolutions and WEC Energy Group have cited data centers, AI, and industrial growth as the reasons for new nuclear generation there.318 EnergySolutions told the NRC in January that it plans to file a major licensing application by June 2028. It has not said which reactor technology it will use.19 Local reporting describes plans for possible on-site data centers and an expanded "energy center" with a target of 2038.16 Meanwhile, nearby residents were offered $20,000 an acre for farmland, which sparked rumors and a packed town hall. Town officials there say they don't want a data center.13

Put together, these accounts suggest that data centers help justify building new reactors but are unpopular with the towns expected to host them. Developers cite AI-driven demand to make the case for financing. Local leaders in both Vernon and Carlton have pushed back on that idea, even while welcoming the reactors.

Where the coverage agrees, and where it doesn't

All the reporting agrees on the basic logic of reusing old sites. The transmission connection is the most valuable remaining asset, these towns already accept nuclear plants, and they want the tax revenue and jobs back.2413 There is also broad agreement that nothing will happen soon. Johnson's seven-to-eight-year estimate for Vernon is close to Kewaunee's late-2030s target.115 Federal analysts see a large opportunity: the Department of Energy has estimated that existing nuclear sites could host up to 95 GW of new reactors.3

The details are less settled. Reports give Vermont Yankee's capacity as roughly 600, 617, or 620 MW.21125 The number of spent fuel casks on site is reported as 57, 58, or 59.232726 Decommissioning timelines also differ. The ANS cites completion by 2030, while local reporting says physical work is 99% done and will finish in 2027, followed by an NRC site review that could take a couple of years.128 These are minor differences. But they matter for anyone trying to work out when a new reactor could actually break ground in Vernon, because the NRC has to release the site first.26

The bigger disagreement is about cost and urgency. Critics in Wisconsin point to Lazard's estimate that new nuclear costs $141 to $220 per megawatt-hour, compared with $38 to $92 for solar, and to Vogtle's cost of roughly $35 billion. They also ask whether reactors arriving in 10 to 15 years can help data centers that need power now.17

The takeaway

These announcements are best read as moves to claim valuable sites, not as commitments to build. Dairyland is pairing a cooperative's steady demand with a reactor design that was recently shelved. Vermont is using its first option on the land and its regulatory authority to make sure a reactor, not just a large data center, ends up at the Yankee switchyard. Whether either effort produces a working reactor depends on things neither state controls: which SMR vendors survive, how quickly the NRC moves, and whether costs fall. The grid connections at these old sites will be hard to replace, which is why each state is trying to secure them early.