OPINION: Task Force Fell Far Short of What Needed to be Done to Secure Delaware’s Future

August 25, 2026

By State Rep. Jeff Hilovsky

The recent report issued by the Nuclear Energy Feasibility Task Force was profoundly disappointing and does little to ensure our state will be prepared to take advantage of this zero-carbon, dependable power source when it becomes available.

In partnership with State Sen. Bryant Richardson (R-Seaford), I sponsored the bipartisan concurrent resolution creating the task force. It was approved by the General Assembly last July.

The 25-member task force, of which I was a part, was charged with exploring the challenges and feasibility of deploying small modular reactors (SMRs) in Delaware, weighing this technology’s promise against its costs and potential environmental impacts. We also reviewed permitting, regulations, the regional power grid, appropriate operational venues, methods of financing, federal permitting, and access to available federal grants, among other topics.

Interest in SMRs has increased significantly in recent years in the United States, Europe, Russia, and China. It is easy to understand the appeal. Traditional nuclear power plants are bespoke, multi-billion-dollar projects, built on-site, often taking more than a decade to construct.

SMRs are much smaller, factory-built reactors that can be transported to building sites by truck or train. They require a fraction of the capital, can potentially be built in less than a third of the time, and are scalable. More reactor modules can be added to the site as demand increases.

While there was good reason to be enthusiastic, there was also rightful reticence about being the first to develop and deploy SMRs in the US. However, as the process takes years, and many states are already way beyond the starting stages, that reluctance seems more like an excuse than a reason not to move forward.

As a motivated member of the group, I had a front-row seat to its workings and deliberations. The task force met about a dozen times, with each session lasting approximately three hours, reviewing detailed presentations from nationwide and industry experts. Members posed thoughtful questions to energy, utility, environmental, and regulatory experts. Generally, the information we received was objective and thorough, although there were some exceptions.

The final report called for establishing a policy framework for nuclear energy, conducting additional technical studies, and holding meetings with residents and local officials—an approach best described as “kicking the can down the road.”

What the task force delivered was more of an ineffectual wish list than a blueprint for advancement. Critical to moving forward, the following list of reasonably expected deliverables was not delivered:

• No state agency was identified as the primary office of responsibility.

• No definitive strategy was developed to move from concept to reality.

• No timeline was established for deploying small modular nuclear reactors.

• No preferred list of suitable sites was determined.

• No action plan with goals, milestones, or target dates was completed.

• No plan was created to start the application/paperwork process for federal funding of any nuclear project.

• No financing structure(s) were identified.

• No electrical grid updates were planned or proposed to accommodate baseload power expansion.

What makes this planned inaction even more shameful is that our state is facing two concurrent energy crises: near-term and long-term. They are synergistic and foretell a dismal economic story. Doing nothing is not an option, and yet that is exactly what this report proposes through its purposeful inaction.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Delaware does not generate enough power domestically to meet its daily electricity needs. In fact, roughly 60% of the electricity we rely on is imported from nearby states via the regional power grid. Every mile electricity is transported degrades the energy being transported, making it less efficient. This not only makes all Delawareans less secure in the event of a crisis, but it also means that the cost of electricity delivered into constrained areas of the grid will be higher.

Many of the members of the task force publicly said they supported generating more power locally through a diverse mix of resources. In my estimation, this report reveals those statements to be nothing more than public relations lip service.

We are missing an opportunity to diversify power generation by not aggressively pursuing proven, reliable, dispatchable generation through combined-cycle natural gas turbines and SMR development. Instead, our state’s leaders seem content to bet our future on wind and solar power and, perhaps, on hydrogen gas sometime in the future.

Germany's experience offers a cautionary example of what can happen when a nation pursues an electricity supply strategy largely dependent on renewable energy while maintaining substantial system, network, and policy costs. Between 55% and 60% of the nation’s power comes from renewable resources. In 2025, the average cost of electricity topped 40 cents per kilowatt-hour (U.S.).

By comparison, Delaware residential electricity customers were paying about 18 cents per kWh at the time.The failure to capitalize on the task force's work was a missed opportunity that all Delawareans will likely pay for in the future. This is a crisis. Again, doing nothing is not an option. Delawareans deserve more.