Powering Growth: How State Nuclear Energy Incentives Are Reshaping Site Selection Strategy

Power, Incentives, and the Future of Site Selection

For decades, workforce, taxes, and logistics have dominated corporate location decisions, but a new site selection factor is rapidly emerging: access to reliable, scalable, and affordable power. As demand from data centers, advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence, and electrification continues to accelerate, states across the country are turning to advanced nuclear energy, small modular reactors (SMRs), and targeted incentive programs to strengthen their overall competitive position. For corporate site selectors, the implications extend far beyond energy policy. They represent a new layer of opportunity, risk, and strategic advantage that can significantly influence long-term operating costs and investment outcomes.

The Growing Connection Between Energy Strategy and Site Selection

Texas continues to position itself as a national leader in advanced nuclear deployment. Policymakers are exploring financial support mechanisms, permitting advantages, workforce initiatives, and market structures designed to attract SMR and advanced reactor developers — and Texas is frequently cited as one of the states most likely to host multiple commercial advanced reactor projects.

Indiana’s SB 424 (P.L. 48), enacted in 2025, allows utilities to recover certain SMR development costs before a final construction decision is made, reducing early-stage project risk. Indiana is also emerging as a manufacturing and supply-chain hub for nuclear components — a significant site-selection consideration beyond power generation itself. The state enacted P.L. 217-2025, the nation’s first Nuclear Manufacturing Expense Tax Credit: a 20% non-refundable credit on qualified investments in the manufacture of small modular nuclear reactors.

Illinois repealed its longstanding prohibition on new nuclear development and is now pursuing approximately 2 GW of additional nuclear generation, leveraging its existing nuclear workforce and supply chain advantages.

Utah Governor Cox’s “Operation Gigawatt” initiative has become one of the most visible state-led efforts to expand generation capacity, positioning Utah as a destination for advanced nuclear investment and energy-intensive industries.

Michigan continues supporting workforce development, nuclear innovation, and preservation of existing nuclear assets, with lawmakers advancing millions in incentives for new reactors and workforce training. The state remains a leading contender for future advanced reactor deployment thanks to its manufacturing base, skilled workforce, and energy-intensive industrial sector.

Missouri and Iowa have both launched nuclear-focused task forces, signaling growing competition among states seeking to attract advanced reactor investment and supply-chain companies.

New England — In March 2026, six New England governors (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont) issued a joint statement committing to explore advanced nuclear technologies while supporting existing nuclear facilities — one of the most notable regional nuclear policy developments of the year.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced a goal of developing 5 GW of new nuclear generation, making New York one of the most aggressive states pursuing nuclear expansion. For corporate site selectors, this is a significant signal regarding future energy reliability and zero-carbon baseload generation.

New Jersey removed statutory barriers that had effectively limited new nuclear development and created a state Nuclear Power Task Force to evaluate future opportunities.

California continues debating nuclear’s future amid reliability challenges, data center growth, electrification, and the planned timelines surrounding Diablo Canyon — though the state remains considerably more cautious than many Midwestern and Southern states.

Massachusetts continues examining policy changes that could facilitate advanced nuclear deployment and has become increasingly engaged in regional discussions about advanced reactors.

Virginia’s SB 454 allows Dominion Energy to seek recovery of SMR development costs before commercial operation, reducing project risk and signaling state support for advanced nuclear development. Virginia’s rapidly growing data center sector remains a major demand driver.

Kansas officials have been working with advanced reactor developers and evaluating opportunities to host future commercial SMR projects.

Kentucky adopted one of the nation’s most aggressive early-stage project support programs, authorizing up to $75 million in grants for permitting, licensing, and project development activities related to advanced nuclear projects — a noteworthy incentive model for site selectors to watch.

Wyoming remains the highest-profile advanced reactor development location due to TerraPower’s Natrium project in Kemmerer. Construction activities advanced further in 2026 and continue to draw national attention.

How States Are Competing for Nuclear-Related Investment

The bigger story isn’t just reactor deployment — it’s how states are competing for the investment that surrounds it. States are increasingly offering:

• Workforce development grants
• Nuclear engineering and technician training programs
• Site readiness funding
• Manufacturing tax credits
• Fast-track permitting processes
• Utility cost-recovery mechanisms
• Infrastructure grants
• Public-private partnerships
• Property tax abatements for energy infrastructure
• Supply-chain recruitment incentives

Many economic development organizations now view advanced nuclear projects similarly to EV battery plants, semiconductor fabs, or large data centers — as transformational economic development opportunities.

The Debate: Opportunity vs. Risk

Proponents of nuclear expansion argue that atomic energy is essential to a reliable, carbon-free future, while critics point to lingering waste and regulatory issues. Several specific concerns are shaping the conversation:

Cost Escalation Risk. Critics argue that advanced nuclear technologies remain commercially unproven at scale, pointing to historical examples of nuclear projects experiencing significant cost overruns and schedule delays. Questions remain about whether SMRs can actually achieve their projected cost advantages.

Ratepayer Exposure. Several recent state laws — including those in Indiana and Virginia — allow utilities to recover project development costs before a reactor is operational. Consumer advocates argue this shifts financial risk from developers to ratepayers.

Supply Chain Constraints. Even strong proponents acknowledge that deployment at scale will require significant expansion of skilled labor, nuclear-grade manufacturing, fuel supply, and regulatory capacity — constraints that could slow deployment schedules.

Federal Regulatory Uncertainty. Although many states are accelerating deployment efforts, reactor projects still depend heavily on Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing timelines and federal approval processes.

What This Means for Site Selection

Competition among states is no longer just about attracting advanced reactors themselves. Increasingly, states are using incentives, cost-recovery mechanisms, workforce investments, and site-readiness programs to attract the broader nuclear ecosystem — including manufacturers, data centers, hyper-scale computing facilities, fuel supply companies, engineering firms, and high-energy industrial users seeking reliable, carbon-free power.

For companies evaluating where to locate energy-intensive operations, understanding each state’s nuclear policy posture — and the incentive structures behind it — is becoming a core part of the site selection conversation.

Final Industry Insight

As energy availability becomes a critical factor in corporate location strategy, companies that align site selection, economic development incentives, workforce considerations, and long-term infrastructure planning will be best positioned to maximize project value and operational performance.

What This Means for Corporate Site Selectors and Project Stakeholders

For companies evaluating data centers, advanced manufacturing facilities, energy-intensive operations, or major capital investments, access to reliable, affordable power is rapidly becoming a site selection differentiator rather than a utility consideration. States that are investing in advanced nuclear technologies, workforce development, manufacturing incentives, and energy infrastructure are signaling their intent to compete for the next generation of economic growth.

But identifying the right location requires more than understanding which states support nuclear development.

It requires understanding:

• How energy policy may impact future operating costs
• Which incentives are available and attainable
• Where workforce and supply chain ecosystems are developing
• How infrastructure investments align with long-term business objectives
• Which markets offer the strongest combination of certainty, scalability, and financial return

At Ashmore Consulting, we help organizations evaluate location alternatives, quantify state and local tax credits and business incentives, and negotiate packages that improve project economics while supporting long-term operational success.

If your organization is considering a data center, manufacturing facility, headquarters, expansion, or relocation project, let’s discuss how energy strategy, site selection, and incentives can work together to create a sustainable competitive advantage.

The states winning tomorrow’s investments aren’t simply generating more power. They’re creating the conditions for businesses to succeed for decades to come.