What technologies are in the running for NYPA’s advanced nuclear power plant — and who’s supplying them?

Governor Kathy Hochul’s June 2025 directive to the New York Power Authority to build a 1 gigawatt zero-emission nuclear power plant has catalyzed a critical technology competition. NYPA is now assessing multiple advanced nuclear reactor designs to determine which supplier and system will anchor the state’s first new nuclear build in decades.

The agency’s review includes several leading technologies such as GE Hitachi’s BWRX-300, NuScale Power’s VOYGR SMR series, X-energy’s Xe-100 high-temperature gas reactor, TerraPower’s Natrium design, and Last Energy’s PWR-20 modular microreactor. This decision will shape not only New York’s energy mix but also the industrial roadmap for deploying advanced nuclear across the United States.

The plant, expected to come online in the early-to-mid 2030s, is part of a broader strategy to fill dispatchable clean energy gaps as New York deactivates fossil fuel plants and accelerates electrification. With industrial demand rising—especially in AI data centers and semiconductor fabs—analysts view advanced nuclear as a vital addition to the grid’s reliability portfolio.

What small modular reactor designs are being evaluated and why are they suitable for New York’s future energy needs?

GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy’s BWRX-300 is considered a leading contender due to its simplified design and evolutionary lineage from traditional boiling water reactors already in use across New York. It uses natural circulation for cooling and fewer active components, offering reduced construction time and easier regulatory alignment. The design is being deployed in Canada and Poland, adding commercial momentum.

NuScale Power’s VOYGR platform, particularly its 6-module and 12-module configurations, presents a modular path toward scalability. Already certified by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), NuScale’s design includes passive safety features and flexible siting potential. Despite recent cost overruns in canceled Utah projects, its certification status remains a major advantage.

X-energy’s Xe-100, a helium-cooled pebble-bed reactor using TRISO fuel, represents a Gen-IV solution with a high safety profile and operational resilience. Its potential for high-temperature process heat and modular 80 MWe units makes it appealing for phased capacity growth, though regulatory timelines remain uncertain.

TerraPower’s Natrium design, co-developed with Bechtel and supported by U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) funding, integrates a 345 MWe sodium-cooled reactor with molten salt-based energy storage. The unique combination enables flexible power output, a strategic match for grids with high renewable penetration. However, sodium handling introduces complexity not present in light-water SMRs.

Last Energy’s PWR-20 offers a radically compact design: a 20 MWe light-water reactor enclosed in a shipping container-sized unit. Though unproven at scale, the microreactor’s cost and siting profile make it attractive for niche use cases such as distributed backup power or retrofitting decommissioned coal sites.

What are the key technology selection criteria guiding NYPA’s vetting process?

The New York Power Authority’s decision will hinge on several key factors: licensing readiness, safety assurance, deployment speed, cost predictability, and compatibility with existing grid and labor infrastructure.

GE Hitachi’s BWRX-300 benefits from its evolutionary design and domestic supply chain advantages, with construction in progress at Ontario Power Generation’s Darlington site. It also enjoys strong support from U.S. utilities and was shortlisted for up to USD 800 million in DOE funding.

NuScale’s certified design offers predictable timelines and factory production benefits but has faced financial strain following cost escalations and reduced customer interest, making public-private financing critical.

X-energy’s Xe-100 has been selected by the DOE’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP) and is scheduled for deployment at Dow’s Texas site by the early 2030s. While still under NRC licensing review, its heat process applications make it a strong candidate for New York’s industrial power zones.

TerraPower’s Natrium, meanwhile, has broken ground in Wyoming and is backed by the Gates Foundation, but has also faced delays due to high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) supply constraints. Its integrated storage design could be game-changing for New York’s renewable-heavy grid, though at the expense of added engineering risk.

Last Energy’s microreactor design is still pre-commercial, and while it has signed memoranda of understanding in Europe and Asia, it has not cleared any U.S. regulatory hurdles. Its deployment in New York would likely require a small-scale demonstration project first.

How are institutional investors and industry experts viewing this supplier competition?

Institutional sentiment favors NYPA’s measured, diversified evaluation approach. Analysts note that choosing a vendor already in deployment phases—such as GE Hitachi or TerraPower—would significantly de-risk construction delays and improve public confidence in the project.

GE Vernova, the parent of GE Hitachi, is actively building utility partnerships around the BWRX-300 platform, including with Constellation Energy and TVA. TerraPower continues to attract attention for its public–private structure, with analysts noting its balance of innovation and federal alignment.

NuScale Power, listed as SMR on the NYSE, has seen volatile investor sentiment. After canceling the Carbon Free Power Project in Utah, NuScale’s stock dropped significantly, but regained traction following new international interest and cost restructuring efforts.

X-energy, a privately held firm, is gaining credibility via its ARDP award and recent manufacturing joint ventures. Analysts expect it to pursue public listing or SPAC merger options in 2025–26 to finance deployment at commercial scale.

Institutional investors broadly view NYPA’s project as a proving ground. If a vendor succeeds in New York, it could unlock nationwide contracts—particularly in states with similar grid reliability challenges and climate mandates.

What challenges must be addressed before the selected technology can be built and operated?

Despite strong interest, each technology faces licensing, supply chain, and funding hurdles. Licensing remains a particular concern for Gen-IV reactors like the Xe-100 and Natrium, which are still undergoing safety case validation.

Fuel availability is another critical issue. Only the BWRX-300 and NuScale VOYGR currently operate on standard low-enriched uranium (LEU). X-energy and TerraPower require HALEU, which is in limited supply until DOE-supported domestic enrichment ramps up.

Project financing and labor mobilization are also challenges. NYPA may need to structure long-term power purchase agreements or seek Inflation Reduction Act clean energy credits to guarantee investment-grade revenues. In parallel, labor unions and training programs will need to scale up nuclear-certified workforces across upstate regions.

What comes next — how will NYPA’s technology decision progress over the next year?

Feasibility assessments, community consultations, and early-stage technology downselection will take place through mid-2026, in coordination with the state’s advanced nuclear master plan. NYPA is expected to make an initial technology recommendation by Q4 2026.

This will be followed by preliminary permitting, DOE engagement, and project-specific financing structures. First-of-a-kind deployment decisions will likely hinge on federal cost-sharing and supply chain readiness.

Barring regulatory or procurement delays, NYPA aims to break ground before 2030. If successful, this will be the largest advanced nuclear facility to enter the U.S. pipeline since the Vogtle expansion in Georgia—though built under a new paradigm of modularity, public control, and grid flexibility.

How will NYPA’s advanced nuclear technology choice shape the future of U.S. clean energy infrastructure deployment?

The New York Power Authority’s technology selection process will shape the next chapter of the American nuclear renaissance. Whether it opts for the proven scalability of the BWRX-300, the innovative storage features of Natrium, the high-temperature flexibility of the Xe-100, or an upstart like Last Energy, NYPA’s project is poised to become a national benchmark.

With demand surging, emissions targets tightening, and investor scrutiny mounting, New York’s next nuclear plant will be about more than electrons—it will be a test of whether the U.S. can build complex clean energy infrastructure at scale, on budget, and in time.